←back to thread

Twitter hides Donald Trump tweet for “glorifying violence”

(twitter.com)
1061 points danso | 2 comments | 29 May 20 07:24 UTC | HN request time: 0.452s | source
Show context
bilbo0s ◴[29 May 20 08:38 UTC] No.23347697[source]▶
In fairness, Trump's tweets are not about actually doing anything, they are more about getting votes. So arguing the feasibility of suggestions outlined in a Trump tweet kind of misses the point.
replies(6): >>23348193 #>>23348240 #>>23348254 #>>23349351 #>>23350212 #>>23351598 #
tehwebguy ◴[29 May 20 12:54 UTC] No.23349351[source]▶
It was a message, directly to law enforcement, that he thinks it’s okay for them to shoot protestors so long as there is looting. I can’t see how anyone would see that as anything other than a crime against humanity
replies(3): >>23350240 #>>23352408 #>>23352446 #
chooseaname ◴[29 May 20 14:20 UTC] No.23350240[source]▶
I don't know why you're getting down voted. Trump's words are a quote of someone who believed that "... it’s okay for them to shoot protestors so long as there is looting."

Trump is very much saying he believes looter should be shot.

replies(2): >>23350560 #>>23352422 #
Balgair ◴[29 May 20 14:50 UTC] No.23350560[source]▶
To be clear here: Looting is not a capital offense. It's stuff. No TV/car/stereo is worth killing a person over. You have insurance for these things (hopefully).

Though laws vary widely in the US, in CA the punishment is about a year in county jail, give or take:

https://www.shouselaw.com/california-looting-laws.html

replies(3): >>23350600 #>>23351057 #>>23352050 #
andrew_ ◴[29 May 20 15:25 UTC] No.23351057[source]▶
To be clear here: it's not just "stuff." In innumerable ways, the looting and rioting is resulting in loss of material items that cannot be replaced. Case in point: https://twitter.com/wakiyan7/status/1266350546249629699
replies(5): >>23351232 #>>23351400 #>>23351617 #>>23351960 #>>23352197 #
1. margalabargala ◴[29 May 20 16:02 UTC] No.23351617[source]▶
That's horrible.

That's still not worth shooting people in the streets over.

replies(1): >>23355054 #
2. andrew_ ◴[29 May 20 20:23 UTC] No.23355054[source]▶
I was not arguing in favor of shooting anyone. I was simply pointing out that dismissing the destruction in generality as "stuff" is in error and minimizing the effect. Don't lose objectivity in the face of tragedy.