Most active commenters
  • philwelch(8)
  • baby(7)

←back to thread

Twitter hides Donald Trump tweet for “glorifying violence”

(twitter.com)
1061 points danso | 21 comments | 29 May 20 07:24 UTC | HN request time: 3.828s | source | bottom
Show context
darepublic ◴[29 May 20 17:11 UTC] No.23352614[source]▶
As someone of mixed ethnicity who, if I was there could easily be victimized by a senseless mob to whom I owe nothing and have committed no crime against.. yea I am not happy with how the mainstream media promotes and covers this story, downplaying the victims of the chaos and sympathizing with outpourings of anger even if illegal. To clarify, looters should not be shot, law should prevail, and the policeman involved in the original incident should be investigated.. but the mainstream media is to my mind basically behind the looters, and I know if by chance I or someone like me were to be caught in the crossfire and killed, the mainstream media, posturing as champions of justice, would just implicitly shrug. So yea I can't help but feel disaffected by this coverage, no matter how vile the originating incident.
replies(9): >>23352795 #>>23352868 #>>23352998 #>>23353092 #>>23353094 #>>23353096 #>>23353160 #>>23353201 #>>23353449 #
fzeroracer ◴[29 May 20 17:29 UTC] No.23352868[source]▶
This entire event is effectively self-defense from a community that has felt terrorized by the police for decades.

It could've been easily prevented by actually arresting someone that committed abject murder, but the city and the police chose to instead defend a man who has killed multiple people in the past and got away with it scott-free. So when people feel like justice no longer exists, there should be no surprise that they get angry.

It doesn't help that the police also employ agent provocateurs whom help incite riots and looting so that they can use more violent tactics with glee.

replies(10): >>23352937 #>>23352955 #>>23352972 #>>23353053 #>>23353119 #>>23353164 #>>23353248 #>>23353269 #>>23353333 #>>23355165 #
1. philwelch ◴[29 May 20 17:47 UTC] No.23353119[source]▶
Looting private businesses and setting fires isn’t “self-defense”.
replies(3): >>23353171 #>>23353867 #>>23355194 #
2. baby ◴[29 May 20 17:50 UTC] No.23353171[source]▶
An organism that is attacked can self defend in impredictible ways, there will be collaterals.
replies(2): >>23353416 #>>23353900 #
3. efraim ◴[29 May 20 18:06 UTC] No.23353416[source]▶
That still doesn't make looting self-defense.
replies(1): >>23357353 #
4. anigbrowl ◴[29 May 20 18:40 UTC] No.23353867[source]▶
Military theorists disagree.
replies(1): >>23353944 #
5. philwelch ◴[29 May 20 18:43 UTC] No.23353900[source]▶
Sure. If you mistreat a dog for long enough and then let it loose in a playground it may very well react by mauling random children. Usually the end result is the dog getting euthanized because it’s not capable of living peaceably within society anymore, so I’m not sure that’s really the analogy you want to go with here. I would expect grown adult humans to have better judgment.
replies(1): >>23357358 #
6. ixtli ◴[29 May 20 18:46 UTC] No.23353944[source]▶
Not to be flippant but, to your point, Civilization has always allowed a profitable "pillage" option if your units are on an enemy title. This is a feature of struggle.
replies(1): >>23354291 #
7. philwelch ◴[29 May 20 19:13 UTC] No.23354291{3}[source]▶
And if that’s the answer we’re going with—that looting businesses is part of a general violent insurrection—then Trump’s threat to suppress that insurrection with military force becomes more justifiable, not less.
8. GordonS ◴[29 May 20 20:35 UTC] No.23355194[source]▶
It's drawing worldwide attention to the issue of systemic racism across the police force in the USA though, isn't it?

What else do you think might get this kind of attention? Fact is, incidents like this have been happening for a long, long time, yet nothing changes.

replies(1): >>23359604 #
9. baby ◴[30 May 20 00:40 UTC] No.23357353{3}[source]▶
If you see the community, or the people, as a single organism. Then yes it is reacting in harmful way to an attack. And it is hard to control where the harm is directed.
replies(1): >>23359657 #
10. baby ◴[30 May 20 00:41 UTC] No.23357358{3}[source]▶
why not? In a lot of authoritarian state this is what happens. Look at Hong Kong.
11. philwelch ◴[30 May 20 08:51 UTC] No.23359604[source]▶
That’s the rationalization of a terrorist.
replies(1): >>23359678 #
12. philwelch ◴[30 May 20 09:00 UTC] No.23359657{4}[source]▶
You’re talking about human beings who are responsible for their own actions.
replies(1): >>23362247 #
13. GordonS ◴[30 May 20 09:06 UTC] No.23359678{3}[source]▶
I think we need to be very careful before throwing around that word - it's something the authorities band around a lot, usually when it fits their political narrative. I don't think we should any further dilute the term.

I think it's ludicrous to call a spontaneous out-pouring of despair and anger, after being wronged so badly for so long, an act of "terrorism".

replies(1): >>23359749 #
14. philwelch ◴[30 May 20 09:22 UTC] No.23359749{4}[source]▶
Thankfully that’s not what I said. I said that was the rationalization of a terrorist, and it is. Committing violent acts against third parties to gain attention for some grievance is inexcusable, and if your rationalization is that “it works”, then perhaps the best response is to ensure that such tactics never work so as to eliminate the incentive to engage in them.
15. baby ◴[30 May 20 16:24 UTC] No.23362247{5}[source]▶
And yet people generalize the action of a few to the whole protest.
replies(1): >>23365370 #
16. philwelch ◴[30 May 20 22:28 UTC] No.23365370{6}[source]▶
Yes, especially when they say things like, "If you see the community, or the people, as a single organism..."
replies(1): >>23367679 #
17. baby ◴[31 May 20 06:29 UTC] No.23367679{7}[source]▶
it's like you're actively trying not to understand my comment?
replies(2): >>23367913 #>>23368432 #
18. philwelch ◴[31 May 20 07:32 UTC] No.23367913{8}[source]▶
Not at all. If looting and vandalism is “the action of a few”, then it doesn’t make sense to characterize it as “self-defense” on behalf of some collective “organism”. It’s like you switched sides and started arguing my point in the middle of the argument.
replies(1): >>23371397 #
19. efraim ◴[31 May 20 09:57 UTC] No.23368432{8}[source]▶
What is the point of your comments? You mention the community as an organism that can't control where the harm is directed, that is acting in self-defense. But the people looting, breaking windows and throwing stones are individuals that chose to participate in violent riots. They are not acting in self-defense.
replies(1): >>23371403 #
20. baby ◴[31 May 20 18:16 UTC] No.23371397{9}[source]▶
> If looting and vandalism is “the action of a few”, then it doesn’t make sense to characterize it as “self-defense” on behalf of some collective “organism”.

Then we'll have to agree to disagree, opportunists don't exist without a crowd.

21. baby ◴[31 May 20 18:16 UTC] No.23371403{9}[source]▶
The point of my comment is that you will always have bad apples, doesn't make the whole field rotten.