←back to thread

1061 points danso | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
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 #
dmode ◴[] No.23351495[source]
You should read up on the history of the phrase "when looting starts, shooting starts"
replies(2): >>23351690 #>>23351731 #
koheripbal ◴[] No.23351690[source]
I read up on it's use in 1967. ...and it didn't really add anything. Looting leads to police/national guard having to restore order through violence.

There's no hidden meaning here.

replies(1): >>23352492 #
thethethethe ◴[] No.23352492[source]
It was used by a racist police chief in reference to black protesters during the _civil rights movement_, which I think we can all agree is on the right side of history. The parallels are pretty clear to me, I’m not sure what you are missing here
replies(1): >>23352698 #
1. will4274 ◴[] No.23352698[source]
The fact that the police chief was racist doesn't make him wrong. He can be both racist and correct that looting generally leads to shooting.
replies(1): >>23353376 #
2. thethethethe ◴[] No.23353376[source]
> He can be both racist and correct that looting generally leads to shooting.

It appears as though you are deliberately misinterpreting this statement to confirm your biases.

This statement is obviously intended to be interpreted as “the state will shoot looters (and possibly other protesters) when there is looting during a political protest”. If you genuinely don’t see it this way after considering all of contextual history of racial violence and injustice, it must benefit you to have your head in the sand

replies(2): >>23355473 #>>23358224 #
3. zepto ◴[] No.23355473[source]
I don’t think there needs to be anything deliberate about it.

My guess is that there is a huge set of people who doesn’t know the origin, and see the statement as more of a statement of fact.

4. ◴[] No.23358224[source]