Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Twitter hides Donald Trump tweet for “glorifying violence”

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

811–820 of 1001 posts

Re: Twitter hides Donald Trump tweet for “glorifying violence”

#811

Post by russdill »

dmoy wrote: post #801
meheleventyone wrote: post #736

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't it a long standing thing that the US Military use of force rules in warzones are generally more restrictive than the policies for use on their fellow citizens by police back home?

Yes One obvious example of this is simply ammo. Military bullets don't expand as much as bullets available to cops or civilians. A military bullet is explicitly not allowed to be an expanding hollow point which really messes you up. There are all sorts of international agreements on not using certain types of things in war - types of bullets are no exception.

There's an argument for using hollow point bullets on sidearms in civilian environments. There's a lower probability of "over penetration". For a high power rifle in a military environment, such a thing is less of a concern.

Re: Twitter hides Donald Trump tweet for “glorifying violence”

#812

Post by carapace »

plutonorm wrote: post #719

I can’t believe everyone is suddenly in favour of censorship. Do you want 1984? Because this is how you get 1984.

POTUS can SMS the entire nation at once. He is not being censored in any meaningful sense of the term.

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-45730367

Re: Twitter hides Donald Trump tweet for “glorifying violence”

#813

Post by nowandlater »

dmoy wrote: post #801
meheleventyone wrote: post #736

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't it a long standing thing that the US Military use of force rules in warzones are generally more restrictive than the policies for use on their fellow citizens by police back home?

Yes One obvious example of this is simply ammo. Military bullets don't expand as much as bullets available to cops or civilians. A military bullet is explicitly not allowed to be an expanding hollow point which really messes you up. There are all sorts of international agreements on not using certain types of things in war - types of bullets are no exception.

Correct, hollow-point ammunition is prohibited by the Geneva Conventions. This has always baffled me since large caliber and high explosive munitions (120mm HEAT rounds from an Abrams) are regularly used against soft targets in combat, not to mention things like hellfire missles or JDAMs. That's the rules of war for you.

Re: Twitter hides Donald Trump tweet for “glorifying violence”

#814

Post by beart »

umvi wrote: post #213
ikeyany wrote: post #192

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.

> 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"

What do you base the knowledge of how most people will have interpreted this statement on?

The historical experiences of different classes of people can have a profound impact on the perspectives they have in relation to the government. An 80 year old black man might have a very different relationship with governmental authorities than a 30 year old Latino, or a 40 year old Caucasian.

Re: Twitter hides Donald Trump tweet for “glorifying violence”

#815

Post by chrsm »

Simulacra wrote: post #595
RIMR wrote: post #561

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's perfectly okay that you hold the opinion that the tweet didn't glorify violence. Your opinion is objectively wrong, but you're allowed to hold it.

Only according to your opinion. Just because you disagree with me does not mean you're right.

Look into the history of the phrase he used - and you will realize that you are wrong.

Re: Twitter hides Donald Trump tweet for “glorifying violence”

#816

Post by remarkEon »

dmoy wrote: post #801
meheleventyone wrote: post #736

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't it a long standing thing that the US Military use of force rules in warzones are generally more restrictive than the policies for use on their fellow citizens by police back home?

Yes One obvious example of this is simply ammo. Military bullets don't expand as much as bullets available to cops or civilians. A military bullet is explicitly not allowed to be an expanding hollow point which really messes you up. There are all sorts of international agreements on not using certain types of things in war - types of bullets are no exception.

This comment is all sorts of wrong.

Military "bullets" (they're called rounds, actually) are designed to be optimized for performance in a warfare environment. That means accuracy, and range. A hollow point round is design to expand and be a stopping shot - with one round - and not continue to travel large distances, which puts other people at risk. Cops can carry those because if they're in a crowded environment firing a hollow point round at a threat means less risk to anyone else who isn't a threat.

>There are all sorts of international agreements on not using certain types of things in war - types of bullets are no exception.

Yeah no one will care about this once an actual near-peer war kicks off.

Re: Twitter hides Donald Trump tweet for “glorifying violence”

#817

Post by trhway »

oneplane wrote: post #795
meheleventyone wrote: post #736

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't it a long standing thing that the US Military use of force rules in warzones are generally more restrictive than the policies for use on their fellow citizens by police back home?

Doesn't that mostly have to do with the amount of training, responsibility, leadership etc. that comes with military hierarchy? It can still get pretty bad (coverup and/or violence wise), but it seems that at least they have some sense of the relationship between violent actions and their consequences.

>sense of the relationship between violent actions and their consequences

exactly. Whatever you use in warzone you're risking that the same can be used against you, thus all the conventions on warzone weapons usage and prisoner treatment. Thus all the training, so that your soldiers wouldn't cross [too frequently] the redline to trigger the response.

I remember reading for example that in WWI new young soldiers, i think in Russia, were sometimes issued old style non-flat 3-edged rifle attached combat knives. Whether the knife is flat or 3-edged wouldn't make any difference during the actual stabbing and the immediate time after that. Where it makes all the difference is outside of the immediate combat situation - those non-flat knives would make for unnecessary horrible very hard to heal wounds, and thus if you were found with such a knife on a battlefield you'd be killed right there instead of taken POW. So the older soldiers would make sure that the newbies would promptly lose the knives.

The situation is similar to hollow-point bullets - they create those horrible wounds without any tactical benefit on actual battlefield.

Re: Twitter hides Donald Trump tweet for “glorifying violence”

#818

Post by belltaco »

kyleblarson wrote: post #705
gowld wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's amazing. Of all the horrific thing people post to Twitter all day long, a vague statement about Palestinian independence is the "best" whataboutist comparison Trump could find to match his own threat to open fire on the country he is sworn to defend.

How about this? https://twitter.com/kathygriffin/status/1265440342892929025?...

>Kathleen Mary Griffin is an American comedian and actor who has starred in television comedy specials and has released comedy albums.

Re: Twitter hides Donald Trump tweet for “glorifying violence”

#819

Post by meheleventyone »

russdill wrote: post #811
dmoy wrote: post #801

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes One obvious example of this is simply ammo. Military bullets don't expand as much as bullets available to cops or civilians. A military bullet is explicitly not allowed to be an expanding hollow point which really messes you up. There are all sorts of international agreements on not using certain types of things in war - types of bullets are no exception.

There's an argument for using hollow point bullets on sidearms in civilian environments. There's a lower probability of "over penetration". For a high power rifle in a military environment, such a thing is less of a concern.

But for the sorts of conflicts the US is involved in they are often working in situations with a lot of civilians present. There are also frangible rounds other than those also more destructive to humans. And above all the best way not to accidentally shoot civilians isn’t to have ammunition that makes it less likely to penetrate something else if you miss (this is after all a failure of training) but sane rules of engagement about when you can shoot.

Re: Twitter hides Donald Trump tweet for “glorifying violence”

#820

Post by bgorman »

advisedwang wrote: post #806
bgorman wrote: post #794

Objectively - how is this advocating for violence? I have not been following this deeply but it seems like there is already serious violence occurring where dozens of people have been charged with probable felonies and buildings have been set on fire? Isn't it the responsibility of the local government to protect private property? It certainly seems like the situation is out of hand when a police station is burned to…

The phrase Trump uses is a direct quote from a police chief who was explicitly giving the OK to his police officers to kill protesters. Much as I hate the over-use of the term "dog whistle" this is the exact thing it means. It has plausible deniability, but to the intended audience it sends a clear message. https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2020/05/29/when-the-l...

I see, the original post didn't show this tweet
Post reply on HN