←back to thread

1061 points danso | 5 comments | | HN request time: 1.211s | source
Show context
shiado ◴[] No.23347239[source]
The service that hosts the accounts of all branches of the US military, all major weapons contractors, all three letter agencies, and many foreign militaries, governments, and world leaders guilty of all manner of war crimes, and this is where they draw the line for violence. Really interesting.
replies(6): >>23347272 #>>23347293 #>>23347332 #>>23350446 #>>23350795 #>>23351894 #
slg ◴[] No.23347332[source]
This is using past violence as a threat of imminent violence while the other accounts you mentioned will generally reference violence indirectly or in the past tense. That is an important distinction.
replies(2): >>23347462 #>>23347853 #
TechBro8615 ◴[] No.23347853[source]
He is the commander in chief. He has the capability to threaten violence.

This tweet, while in bad taste IMO, was a threat to those who are planning to continue looting and burning buildings in Minneapolis.

I’m not sure if you’ve seen the videos, but there are full scale riots. Rioters completely looted a Target and burned it nearly to the ground.

Is “shooting” the answer to that? Probably not. And hopefully the National Guard is not going to do that.

But at the end of the day, this is the commander in chief making a public statement, and Twitter is editorializing it. Make of that what you will.

replies(11): >>23348190 #>>23348268 #>>23348722 #>>23349679 #>>23349688 #>>23349885 #>>23350474 #>>23350625 #>>23350834 #>>23351705 #>>23351801 #
umvi ◴[] No.23349885[source]
Yes, shooting is the answer. Shooting rubber bullets, that is, and deploying tear gas and fire hoses.
replies(2): >>23350680 #>>23351092 #
charlesu ◴[] No.23350680[source]
I’m guessing you weren’t alive in the 1960s. Those are most certainly not the answer. Rubber bullets can blind or kill. Tear gas hurts like hell.

The correct action is reform.

replies(1): >>23350861 #
umvi ◴[] No.23350861[source]
> Rubber bullets can blind or kill. Tear gas hurts like hell.

So... don't go looting? It's supposed to be a deterrent. Maybe you'll think twice about burning down your local target and autozone if there is a risk of being blinded. You'll be perfectly fine as long as you don't reach for your molotov cocktail and baseball bat to go join in the "fun".

replies(5): >>23350972 #>>23351558 #>>23351634 #>>23351647 #>>23352863 #
mthoms ◴[] No.23350972[source]
Because everyone knows there's no such thing as a stray bullet.
replies(1): >>23351077 #
umvi ◴[] No.23351077[source]
To be clear, you are saying "don't try to prevent looting/arson because there is a tiny risk of collateral damage to peaceful civilians"
replies(1): >>23351402 #
1. mthoms ◴[] No.23351402[source]
Nope. I'm refuting your implication that the only people hurt or maimed by rubber bullets are the guilty:

>So... don't go looting? [...] You'll be perfectly fine as long as you don't reach for your molotov cocktail and baseball bat to go join in the "fun"

replies(1): >>23352620 #
2. umvi ◴[] No.23352620[source]
Why are there "peaceful protestors" in burning commercial zones, again? A smoldering Target seems like the wrong venue to protest at.
replies(2): >>23356331 #>>23357164 #
3. mthoms ◴[] No.23356331[source]
You know bullets can travel up to about two and half miles right? And that they can also ricochet?

This is not a video game we're talking about.

replies(1): >>23357145 #
4. umvi ◴[] No.23357145{3}[source]
Rubber bullets? Or real bullets?
5. dragonwriter ◴[] No.23357164[source]
> Why are there "peaceful protestors" in burning commercial zones, again?

There'd be little point in provocateurs burning commercial zones if there weren't peaceful protestors there.