261–270 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, so do you censor things like Dr Dre’s 187 because it might be interpreted as inciting violence against (corrupt) police? A public figure of renown among fans.
Media companies have applied censorship or content warnings to rap music and other art forms - voluntarily or otherwise - for decades without a word of protest from those people determined to make the case for the POTUS' immunity to Twitter's rules
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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 Nati…
One angle I don't see discussed: I wonder if Trump commits to more risky/bombastic/divisive plans as president because he feels confident that he can directly frame them and control the narrative by using his audience on Twitter, and he feels emboldened by how immediately Twitter is able to deliver the reactions. If there's a chance this is true, I can especially understand Twitter wanting to have no part in this. It…
Twitter should have suspended the account of a repeated rule breaker a long time ago. If I threatened to shoot the president, I would be in jail already, not to mention my twitter account would be suspended.
@dang hey can we unflag this?
Link to @realDonaldTrump tweet: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/12662311007807447... tweet text: > ....These THUGS are dishonoring the memory of George Floyd, and I won’t let that happen. Just spoke to Governor Tim Walz and told him that the Military is with him all the way. Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts. Thank you! Disclaimer text: > This Tweet…
For those who don't like opening Twitter links: https://nitter.net/realDonaldTrump/status-/12662311007807447...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Vague and menacing threats are admittedly thuggish behavior, but I think it's hard to argue that it's more thuggish than burning down a police station.
Well of course it isn't "more thuggish." The use of "thug" was done on purpose. It is a known racist dog whistle. Trump's racist followers know exactly what he means when he says "These THUGS are..." They replace that with the n word. It's just as a society we don't allow them to say the n word any more, so they've replaced it with a myriad of dog whistles. What I'm saying is that, in their minds, every single person…
https://historymusings.wordpress.com/2015/04/28/full-text-ob...
I didn’t vote for Trump, but it’s clear he’s referring to individuals and groups that are destroying areas of Minneapolis.
People are wondering "How far does this go? How can Twitter say this is not cool, but allow something like violent movies or games? Where's the line?" The leader of the United States encouraging law enforcement and the military to shoot American citizens for looting, that's the line.
And looting always leads to shooting, regardless of who is saying it.
Should we just step back and laugh? What is funnier than people on both sides of an argument taking themselves way too seriously, and engaging in a bunch of troll-on-troll action?
The US president threatened to send the military into a state to shoot looters among a huge, out of control protest that started over a police officer murdering an innocent citizen. Who the fuck is taking this "too seriously" at whom we should "laugh"?
However, I am willing to extend the scope of the guffaw to the comment bombers on HN who, themselves, might be staring too hard at the bug in the script, rather than stepping back some distance to consider the architecture.
May peace, wisdom, and a great weekend find all, despite the nitwits.
People are wondering "How far does this go? How can Twitter say this is not cool, but allow something like violent movies or games? Where's the line?" The leader of the United States encouraging law enforcement and the military to shoot American citizens for looting, that's the line.
> The leader of the United States encouraging law enforcement and the military to shoot American citizens for looting That's an extremely literal interpretation of his words. Most people would interpret that phrase to mean "you better think twice before looting because I'm not going to sit idly by and let you do it" but in the form of a vaguely threatening, yet catchy rhyme.
Yes, which is better than a reasonable interpretation of his words would show them to be, because going beyond a mere literal reading to consider the deliberate historical reference and the implicit subtext makes the statement worse, not better.