> But if I was as easily triggered as you
I'd ask that you respect the guidelines of HN and refrain from using needlessly charged language like "triggered". I'm not "triggered". I have views that differ from your own. Triggered has a specific meaning, either implying a traumatic response (as in "The loud noise triggered my PTSD") or it can be used to mean something like "offended"). I, personally, am not "offended" by Trump's statement, at least not in the colloquial sense. I'm disappointed by it, sure, but not offended. He didn't insult me. Since we're discussing language and semantics, let's be precise, yes?
> "When you play with fire, you're going to get burned" glorify burning people?
Fires are not intelligent beings with free will. You cannot, by definition, encourage a fire to burn someone. So while shouting "yeah, burn him" at a fire would not be inciting violence, shouting "yeah, shoot him" would be.
I'll also note that context plays an important role in how we understand statements. For example, if I, an individual sitting at my computer, say "protestors deserve to be shot", while that's a rather crappy opinion for an individual to hold, I cannot take action on it. It isn't threatening. On the other hand, when a representative of the government says the same thing, we must take that same statement much more seriously because the government does have the ability to shoot protestors. The same thing applies if I make the same statement while standing with a firearm across the street from a group of people protesting. In context, the same statement can have very different connotations.
Further, Trump specifically has made no effort to differentiate between peaceful and violent protestors. As an example, he retweeted[0] an article[1] claiming that park police cleared peaceful protestors out of Lafayette Park. That article was based on a series of tweets that at the time concluded that park police didn't use tear gas and were unaware of the president's movements, but now include more context, that Secret Service agents may have used tear gas, and that the clearing of the area was ordered directly by AG Barr.
So we have a President who has the power to fire on people, and has used that authority to use weapons of war on peaceful, non-looting, non-violent demonstrators. And who actively tries to blur the line between peaceful and violent protest (as do police forces when they escalate at demonstrations).
So the statement has to be taken in that context.
> And frankly, your interpretation of the Trump tweet is not reasonable. The most reasonable, common-sense interpretation is one linking severe consequences to severe actions.
So let's dive into this. I'd agree, if I were to make the same statement sitting here in front of my screen, it would be mostly an observational take. A terribly worded observation, but an observation. However, I do not have the ability to order people to shoot protestors. Trump does (and in a sense he did: Trump's AG ordered police and soldiers to fire tear gas at peaceful protestors to clear the room for a photoshoot).
In other words, an observation made by a person without power to follow through is a threat when made by a person who can. And Trump does have the power to follow through on his threat.
> In the standard notion of a marketplace, you let decentralized end-users gravitate toward things they like and avoid things they don't like.
Indeed, and twitter is a participant in the marketplace. Twitter itself is not "the marketplace of ideals". There are other places to speak. The idea that every participant in the marketplace must themselves also be a marketplace is antithetical to the idea of a marketplace. You can argue that twitter or facebook has positioned themselves as a marketplace, but they've clearly never really done that. Both have always had moderation and speech policies. They were just speech policies you agreed with (for example: certain uses of certain words have always been banned on both platforms).
> If people like something, they're rather fight to keep it good than let other people "ruin" it.
And you're welcome to do that. And others in the marketplace can listen, or not. Don't praise the marketplace of ideas on one line, and lament it the next when things don't go your way.
> Mobs breaking windows, lighting things on fire, and stealing is violence.
And I didn't say otherwise, but I think you've missed the point. I'll clarify:
The number of people who say that citizens on the streets who are acting violently should face no consequences is very limited. It's isolated mostly to anarchist and anarcho-marxist circles. People who commit violent crimes, indeed, deserve to face consequences.
But that goes both ways. Officers and forces who shoot unarmed, peaceful protestors should face consequences. There are hundreds of incidents of that happening in the past week.
If you have two groups, one who commits violence and is punished, and one who commits violence and is not, the one that isn't getting punished probably isn't oppressed, but the one getting punished might be. If you have two groups, one who commits violence and isn't punished, and one who commits no violence and is punished, well then something is very wrong. And one of those groups probably is oppressed. When the peaceful people are speaking out about being oppressed, and the response is to punish them, well the irony is palpable at that point.
So yes, a president who can threaten violence and face no consequences is not oppressed. While the citizens on the streets, citizens whom he is supposed to represent but is instead threatening with violence, they might just be oppressed.
[0]: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/12679733693513605...
[1]: https://thefederalist.com/2020/06/02/media-falsely-claimed-v...
[2]: https://twitter.com/AugensteinWTOP/status/126779133614663680...