I guess this don’t really answer the question for me. If I were asking why you found tapping ashes in the soup upsetting, the fact that your friends were there wouldn’t really explain it. Instead, it would be something about finding cigarette ash disgusting.
Obviously you find this headline extremely objectionable, and I just don’t see it. Reading the rest of the conversation, I guess you’ll assume that’s because I have some kind of confirmation bias blinders on. I obviously can’t argue with that - we could go over dozens of examples of what appears unacceptable or acceptable to me, but I don’t see how it would be illuminating.
In general I think you’d find that regardless of whether I liked or didn’t like someone, I would find a suggestion that maybe a person who brutalizes animals should in turn be brutalized by those animals to be relatively benign. It’s a strong comment about the anger felt towards animal abusers that doesn’t suggest real world action. By contrast I find, for example, the idea that someone would be subjected to rape threats for expressing a point of view on popular culture to be horrendous, and I would find it equally horrendous if it was Ann Coulter on the receiving end. So I don’t see the parallel between this and something attacks on Sarkeesian, and I don’t think that connects to a personal bias about the target of the headline, though it might connect to a personal bias against people who abuse animals for entertainment.
