←back to thread

Twitter hides Donald Trump tweet for “glorifying violence”

(twitter.com)
1061 points danso | 6 comments | 29 May 20 07:24 UTC | HN request time: 3.997s | source | bottom
Show context
shiado ◴[29 May 20 07:38 UTC] 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 ◴[29 May 20 07:47 UTC] 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 ◴[29 May 20 09:04 UTC] 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 #
ashtonkem ◴[29 May 20 14:55 UTC] No.23350625[source]▶
Are you honest to god defending the president saying that American citizens should be shot?
replies(6): >>23350775 #>>23350816 #>>23350870 #>>23350898 #>>23351711 #>>23353391 #
sasasassy ◴[29 May 20 15:15 UTC] No.23350898[source]▶
American citizens should be shot in the same circumstances any other citizens should be shot, like when all other reasonable countermeasures fail and they are posing a credible treat to other people's lives.
replies(4): >>23350921 #>>23351257 #>>23351410 #>>23389612 #
dfxm12 ◴[29 May 20 15:49 UTC] No.23351410[source]▶
like when all other reasonable countermeasures fail and they are posing a credible treat to other people's lives.

...neither of which is an outcome in this situation, and looting is not a credible treat to people's lives.

replies(1): >>23351853 #
1. packetlost ◴[29 May 20 16:16 UTC] No.23351853[source]▶
But arson is.
replies(1): >>23354546 #
2. ashtonkem ◴[29 May 20 19:37 UTC] No.23354546[source]▶
There are two different questions here, which are only tangentially related.

First, are there circumstances in which a citizen could apply lethal force to protect life and limb? Obviously yes; shooting someone trying to light your house on fire is certainly something that is both plausible and plausibly legal.

Second, is it appropriate for the political leader of a nation to imply that people committing a crime will be shot for it on the street? Not "we will deploy the national guard to provide safety and security to the citizens" but "looters will be shot". I think the answer here is obviously no, that is not appropriate.

replies(1): >>23354987 #
3. packetlost ◴[29 May 20 20:17 UTC] No.23354987[source]▶
I'm not going to defend that part of the statement, it was obviously wrong to anyone with more than 2 brain cells if interpreted literally. However the situation has rapidly declined to a state where I personally think the use of non-lethal force is justified, and lethal in the case of an imminent threat (ie. armed and threatening or literally firebomb in hand). A number of dwellings and business have been set on fire, in addition to the police precinct. These are individuals (and some large corporations) that are unrelated, and those taking advantage of the chaos and creating more should be punished appropriately. Obviously appropriate measures do not involve shooting people.
replies(1): >>23355375 #
4. ashtonkem ◴[29 May 20 20:50 UTC] No.23355375{3}[source]▶
That’s perfectly reasonable.

I will also add that this is also a case of tensions boiling over. While that doesn’t justify the arson, meaningful reform to defuse long standing tensions would be a wise move.

replies(1): >>23355447 #
5. packetlost ◴[29 May 20 20:56 UTC] No.23355447{4}[source]▶
I'd also argue the recent pandemic and subsequent crash of the economy has an underplayed role in the riots. When many haven't left their homes (much) in months and have been laid off, it's no surprise they'd be looking for an excuse to get out and focus their energy. People are desperate and stressed and it makes for some abnormal dynamics.
replies(1): >>23355501 #
6. ashtonkem ◴[29 May 20 21:01 UTC] No.23355501{5}[source]▶
To quote Mike Duncan about a historical incident that ended up toppling a government: “Everyone was just feeling a little bit mutinous”.

You’re right, everyone’s on edge, which has people acting funny.