Twitter hides Donald Trump tweet for “glorifying violence”

As President, or any public figure, you are responsible not only for the intention of your words, but also every feasible interpretation of your words, as well as the impacts of your words, regardless of intention.

I say this not to imply that Trump didn't know that this statement could be taken in multiple ways, but to remind people that even if it can it doesn't matter. It's tragic this has happened, and also tragic to have a leader who reacts to the situation in this way, and that a large swath of the country applauds him for it.

Vague and menacing threats are much more thuggish behavior than emotional reaction to the killing of an unarmed civilian.

As for what Twitter is doing, I'm curious whether they follow this path to it's logical conclusion, which is, eventually Trump being banned from Twitter. He's a huge driver of traffic for them, but perhaps they're thinking about life after Trump at this point, months away from the election.

Vague and menacing threats are admittedly thuggish behavior, but I think it's hard to argue that it's more thuggish than burning down a police station.

Every feasible interpretation? No way. That’s not gonna work. No one would be able to say anything. At best people would talk like ex Fed chair Greenspan. Undoable.

He might spend his 2nd term without Twitter or he might follow-through on his vague threats of reforming social media

I believe there’s a suitable MLK speech in which it explains property violence in response to human violence is an attempt to push the majority to action using loss of property when it is clear loss of life means nothing.

Given that it’s clear literal loss of life meant very little to people but property damage gets multiple multiple news coverage and POTUS coverage etc etc. it’s hard to consider burning down a police station when the police killed someone on camera to be completely improper. All attempts to appeal peacefully to the people who are supposed to deliver justice have failed, and in fact, those who are supposed to deliver justice have done the unjust thing...

Please point me to something Obama said that could be interpreted as inciting deadly vigilante violence.

I’ll wait.

If the protesters decide it's your neighborhood that needs to be burned down next, would you be okay with that?

Well of course it isn't "more thuggish." The use of "thug" was done on purpose. It is a known racist dog whistle. Trump's racist followers know exactly what he means when he says "These THUGS are..." They replace that with the n word. It's just as a society we don't allow them to say the n word any more, so they've replaced it with a myriad of dog whistles.

What I'm saying is that, in their minds, every single person in that mob is a "thug," and everything they're doing is (in your words) "thuggish."

But the mob of white folks in Charlottesville? Nothing thuggish there. That's just white folks protesting against being oppressed by minorities.

I think I’d be upset that this happened, but I’d lie the blame on the feet of the original people in authority who decided not to investigate and bring into custody someone who had killed a man on camera while people were begging him for mercy.

If the cops decide to murder your spouse via a knee to the throat, would you be okay with that?

No, certainly not. Everyone, up to and including Trump, is very unhappy about that incident.

I would call any group of people who burns down a police station, or breaks into a Target and starts stealing stuff, thuggish. The mob of white folks in Charlottesville did not, as far as I know, do these things.

The people in authority are responsible for maintaining a stable, peaceful society, where police don't kill people for no reason and hooligans don't run around smashing things. When the peace is broken, they can't push it off onto other people. They've failed, and the responsibility for that failure lies wholly with them.

I also agree that we can't blame the hooligans; I don't think the kind of person who burns down a police station has a sufficient moral compass to be blamed. But that doesn't diminish the need to urgently stop them.

Why is that the metric?

I agree that there is a need to respond to the ongoing property damage. Unfortunately, the ongoing property damage is in response to an ongoing injustice- the person who killed a man is still walking free and has not been charged or arrested for killing someone pleading for their life on camera.

Yeah, I agree. It was very questionable to not arrest him the instant he got fired, and inexcusably stupid to not bring him into custody yesterday.

The previous president used “thug” to describe Baltimore rioters. Would you consider that racially charged?

https://historymusings.wordpress.com/2015/04/28/full-text-ob...

I didn’t vote for Trump, but it’s clear he’s referring to individuals and groups that are destroying areas of Minneapolis.

My understanding is that he still hasn't been brought into custody. In that case it makes attempting to stop the protests through authoritarian means instead of addressing the original problem makes it... rough.

Yeah, it's completely mystifying. The mayor has "called for" the guy's arrest - can't he just order his arrest? Can't the governor do the same?

Yes. Yes I would. I wouldn't be surprised if that speech was written by a white person who doesn't understand the meaning behind it. I guarantee Obama fully understands how that term is an epithet.

https://www.google.com/search?q=history+of+thug+as+a+race+wh...

Yeah, they only murdered a black person. That's not nearly as bad as burning a building.

/s for those who can't see that I'm responding to someone who has been trolling this thread hard

Comparing the current president with their predecessor in charge does not seem unreasonable.

Yes, every feasible interpretation. That doesn't mean you can't say anything without multiple interpretations, but it _does_ mean that, if you are called on another interpretation of your words, then you spoke unclearly. You need to clarify your meaning and apologize if it was flagrant.

Yes, that is a lot of overhead for communicating. That's what I believe we should expect of our elected leaders. Sadly, nearly half of voting Americans don't seem to agree with me.

FWIW, even in the most far-right audiences I know of, I don't recall a single instance of people taking issue with the "rioters'" reactions against the police force.

I see a focus on the looting and destruction of private property that is unaffiliated with the police: a Target and an Autozone in particular. If anything, I'm seeing broad support for what's happening with regard to the MLPD.

This is not a simple partisan issue. Not even close.

I'd rather the systems of thought control be built on logic and values, some greater purpose, rather than some line drawn in the sand based on some American partisan signal. But I guess this whole thing will forever be political.

So then he would have recanted when called out and the Whitehouse wouldn't have stood by the language - https://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2015/04/29/obama-whit.... Either he thought the word was appropriate or wasn't able to control his staff writers and spokespeople.

You think people are going to vote for that?

You broke the site guidelines badly. We ban accounts that do that. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here.

Obama embodied empathy. I wish we had more politicians like that on both sides of the aisle.

I don't think that was a political line. It was a line between this president and all past presidents regardless of political party.

The logic/value in this case is, speak clearly and own your words. For example, if many people think you implied a subset of the population should be shot, you may have misspoken and should clarify it, not get mad at them, dismiss them, or even worse, double down.

This is not how legal jurisdictions and due process work. I'm not an expert, but if the suspect has fled to another state at this point, this is likely a federal matter that will need FBI involvement.

But, I'm glad you two came to an understanding. Gives me hope.

When I think of thugs, I think of premeditated stick ups, protection money rackets, and intimidation.

A riot is dangerous, unpredictable, and unwise (imo), but I wouldn't characterize it as thuggish. It's clear to me the reason that word was used was to appeal to his base, who are eager to put a label on these protestors as a way of dehumanizing them.

https://theconversation.com/thugs-is-a-race-code-word-that-f...

I think this person is actually not a troll, just has some ideas that are maybe not fully thought through. I see evidence of an open mind by the poster elsewhere on the thread. Let's try to have patience with other people.

I'd say he likely used it as an appeal to people who view things like this through a racial lens. He was trying to draw a line between most black people and those who would physically attack police officers.

You bring up an interesting point with Obama's usage of the word, and I would agree that he knew what he was doing when he used it. As does Trump.

As the first black president, what were the things Obama did to improve the situation?

(serious question, not educated on this matter, generally try to avoid politics)

It is a complicated issue. And quite frankly, I think the policing issues are a flash point triggering unrest over the deeper seated inequality in our society. So it is hard to address the issue directly as the actual number of deaths are not very prevalent. But to answer your question, here is an article comparing DOJ activity under Obama and Trump:

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/6/1/1949441/-Trump-s-J...