Twitter hides Donald Trump tweet for “glorifying violence”

Calling for the quelling of an insurrection is not "glorifying violence," it is exactly what a government is supposed to do.

By calling for the military to shoot protesting citizens? Come on.

Using the dog-whistle racist term "thugs" (in all caps, no less) and proclaiming that you are going to shoot people is escalation of violence. Notice not one other public leader is talking about shooting people-- in fact, the mayor and other local officials are expressing empathy for the rioters and pleading with them for peace.

Trump knows this language will only provoke people and make the situation worse (or he ought to, and certainly any competent, relevant advisor would). He absolutely is glorifying violence.

How is looting stores and destroying public property a proper way to protest?

Ever heard of the Boston Tea Party?

Saying "when the looting starts, the shooting starts" is glorifying violence, which is the literal quote, and not your extreme paraphrase.

Glorification of violence is not simply referencing violence. That doesn't make sense.

The severity of the looting relates to how justified the use of violence against it is. It obviously does not relate to how justified the glorification of that violence is.

The Boston Tea Party was a deliberate provocation. If the protesters here are trying to incite a violent revolution, I suppose that's their right in some sense, but all of us who don't want a revolution have a right to be put out by it.

Looting is a reasonable form of protest? George Floyd’s death is horrific, and I pray justice is served, but communities cannot be destroyed in pursuit of that justice.

Some of this reminds me of Koreatown during the LA riots. If authorities don’t step in, militia’s will rise up to defend their families and livelihood. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots#Destruc... I think it’s reasonable that a community would defend itself when attacked, but when the National Guard is purposed for that protection, why shouldn’t they be called in?

Sure, but in a country where the bar for legitimate protest is set by Constitutional law at "mass armed violence," everything else seems like fair game.

Replying to krapp: violent armed protest protected by the constitution is explicitly targeted at the government in response to loss of freedom. That may be justification for attacking a police station, but not local businesses.

>Looting is a reasonable form of protest?

This is an insulting rhetorical question that only distracts the conversation. The parent obviously did not say nor imply this.

Parent stated that the military was being called in to shoot protesters. No one has ever suggested that action or would consider it reasonable. Implying that was what anyone else was suggesting is insulting and disingenuous.