It's very simple

Either you believe in a world where we can all enjoy our lives, or you believe in a world where people can threaten the lives of anyone who disagrees with them.

It's very simple.

Are you able to understand the wrongness of threatening the lives of people who disagree with you? Do you understand that simply because someone didn't fall down and worship the intellectual ground you walk on—or gods forbid, actually voiced that your beliefs might be wrong, or that they want the world to change—that doesn't give you any right to threaten them?

The latest example is Brianna Wu's life being threatened by an anonymous thug who didn't like how she spoke up in support of women in gaming. And her family. The thug also threatened her family.

Are you able to see the wrongness in this?

Yet again we're seeing those who speak up against injustice in the creative fields being targeted for their views. How is this any different than Malala Yousafzai being targeted for death for speaking up for young women? How is this any different from all the people throughout history who targeted violence toward those whose words they disagreed with?

If you're unable to see that responding to words with violence and threats is wrong, then it's plain you support said violence and threats.

Author and editor Jaym Gates wrote a great post over on Ello about all this. To quote: "I don't have any fear left, but I have a lot of rage, and a lot of motivation to see the people around me safe, a lot of motivation for my industry to be healthy. I have a voice. I will use that voice. Who else will use that voice with me? It's time for the dinosaurs to stop destroying the creative industries, and I'm damn well happy to be part of the meteor that does it."

I have a voice. You have a voice. Use it.