←back to thread

1061 points danso | 6 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
partiallypro ◴[] No.23350905[source]
Twitter is well within the rights to do this, but I have seen tweets from blue check marks essentially calling for violence and Twitter didn't remove them. So, does that mean Twitter actually -supports- those view points now? If Twitter is going to police people, it needs to be across the board. Otherwise it's just a weird censorship that is targeting one person and can easily be seen as political.

Everyone is applauding this because they hate Trump, but take a step back and see the bigger picture. This could backfire in serious ways, and it plays to Trump's base's narrative that the mainstream media and tech giants are colluding to silence conservatives (and maybe there could even be some truth to that.) I know the Valley is an echo chamber, so obviously no one is going to ever realize this.

replies(35): >>23350963 #>>23351063 #>>23351117 #>>23351215 #>>23351218 #>>23351256 #>>23351291 #>>23351365 #>>23351367 #>>23351370 #>>23351380 #>>23351415 #>>23351424 #>>23351434 #>>23351471 #>>23351559 #>>23351591 #>>23351631 #>>23351685 #>>23351712 #>>23351729 #>>23351776 #>>23351793 #>>23351887 #>>23351928 #>>23352027 #>>23352201 #>>23352388 #>>23352822 #>>23352854 #>>23352953 #>>23353440 #>>23353605 #>>23354917 #>>23355009 #
jtbayly ◴[] No.23351415[source]
I'm just going to say again that I can't for the life of me understand why people are in agreement that this tweet glorifies violence. It is a call to stop being violent lest violence increase.

Looting always leads to shooting. This is a simple fact.

I'm horrified that so many people think me saying that is glorifying violence. I don't understand it in the slightest. Seeing this tweet by Trump get silenced absolutely convinces me that there is a conspiracy. Not so much against the right, but against truth.

replies(5): >>23351495 #>>23351528 #>>23351639 #>>23351645 #>>23351975 #
wmkn ◴[] No.23351528[source]
Because the exact phrase has historical context [1] in a sense of: if you loot, we shoot. Clearly it wasn’t said in a sense of: looting inevitably leads to violence.

That makes it sound like Trump used it in a similar fashion.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/where-does-phrase-...

replies(1): >>23351622 #
gweinberg ◴[] No.23351622[source]
Looting doesn't lead to violence, looting is violence.
replies(1): >>23351754 #
1. wmkn ◴[] No.23351754[source]
Fair point. ‘Looting inevitably leads to innocent people getting shot’ is probably not what Trump meant.
replies(1): >>23351869 #
2. jtbayly ◴[] No.23351869[source]
Looting will and must lead to the police taking action to do their most basic job—protecting the life and property of the people. This means almost certainly people will be shot, some guilty, some innocent.
replies(2): >>23352036 #>>23353287 #
3. wmkn ◴[] No.23352036[source]
Shooting should not be the starting point of law enforcement. Shooting should be a last resort. Implying that looting indiscriminately means shooting is a call to violence.
replies(1): >>23352466 #
4. jtbayly ◴[] No.23352466{3}[source]
He never said it was the first resort, or that shooting should or will be indiscriminate. I'm done here. You're not arguing. You're simply begging the question.
replies(1): >>23353079 #
5. mthoms ◴[] No.23353079{4}[source]
His words directly connected the <act of looting> with the <act of shooting>. There is no other way to interpret it.

If he meant something more measured, he should have said something more measured.

6. FireBeyond ◴[] No.23353287[source]
You ever watch how the police behave in some cities when there's looting and rioting because their team won a football or hockey championship. Because that absolutely proves that looting and rioting apparently don't have to lead to police action. They can stand by, or join the celebrations.