←back to thread

Twitter hides Donald Trump tweet for “glorifying violence”

(twitter.com)
1061 points danso | 4 comments | 29 May 20 07:24 UTC | HN request time: 0.695s | source
Show context
midasz ◴[29 May 20 07:34 UTC] No.23347216[source]▶
Wow. This man needs a lesson on how to deescalate a situation properly. Will this heavy handed approach really make people less angry? I doubt it..
replies(6): >>23347234 #>>23347262 #>>23347368 #>>23347531 #>>23347663 #>>23353690 #
101404 ◴[29 May 20 07:51 UTC] No.23347368[source]▶
The National Guard would go to stop violence, wouldn't it?

Pretty interesting how people even here try to invert the situation for political reasons.

replies(3): >>23347381 #>>23347393 #>>23351425 #
midasz ◴[29 May 20 07:52 UTC] No.23347381[source]▶
You tell me, he quite literally says the military is with him and ready to shoot when people start looting.

Please tell me how I am inverting the situation? Or should I use your translation book to make sense of his tweets?

replies(2): >>23347431 #>>23347434 #
liaukovv[dead post] ◴[29 May 20 07:59 UTC] No.23347431[source]▶
If those "people" started looting my property i would have very much liked for someone to shoot them
midasz ◴[29 May 20 08:08 UTC] No.23347492[source]▶
Ah so now they are "people"? The people who loot should be arrested and tried. Once you start using force many innocent people will be caught in the crosshairs, this will only further escalate the situation.
replies(2): >>23347525 #>>23347529 #
liaukovv ◴[29 May 20 08:13 UTC] No.23347529[source]▶
Yes, using violence in politics reduces their humanity in my eyes. They started using force, giving in only invites more violence in the future.
replies(2): >>23347791 #>>23347875 #
1. anigbrowl ◴[29 May 20 09:08 UTC] No.23347875[source]▶
Looting and even property damage is different from violence, and when it happens to a business it's different from when it happens to a person.

It's not that you should like or always accept such things, but the unpleasant part of being robbed is the fear of violence, besides which the lost property itself is usually a transient annoyance. Actual violence against your person is a great deal worse.

replies(1): >>23347939 #
2. liaukovv ◴[29 May 20 09:18 UTC] No.23347939[source]▶
So if someone is robbing you, you should not be allowed to defend your property with violence unless you are threatened directly?

Interesting

replies(2): >>23347970 #>>23348128 #
3. anigbrowl ◴[29 May 20 09:24 UTC] No.23347970[source]▶
You're allowed to defend your person with violence. I think you understand quite well that I am drawing a distinction between your person and property, and that while you can certainly resist being robbed to the extent that you feel personally threatened, your property is of distinctly secondary importance. In the case of corporate property, it's of tertiary importance for reasons I hope are obvious.
4. morsch ◴[29 May 20 09:54 UTC] No.23348128[source]▶
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality_(law)