5 ms·

How is that glorifying violence?

by 2019-nCoV 6y ago

rootlocus 6y ago
> when the looting starts, the shooting starts. What part of this isn't?
- 2019-nCoV 6y ago
  It doesn't unequivocally say that at all. It can reasonably be interpreted as: "once people are willing to break the law and start looting, it's not long before there are also people shooting" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor
  - s5300 6y ago
    Who are you to try to infer alternative ways a direct statement from the POTUS should be parsed. Surely, you're trolling. HN isn't the place for that.
    - kecupochren 6y ago
      IMHO even HN is being astroturfed already...
      - jacquesm 6y ago
        In the general case: yes, absolutely. But in the specific, to make that claim for an individual account requires a high burden of proof. Some people are just stupid or trolls, not necessarily part of an astroturfing operation.
  - hoten 6y ago
    > It can reasonably be interpreted as: "once people are willing to break the law and start looting, it's not long before there are also people shooting" That's definitely not it. Walter Headley, Chief of Miami Police during the 1968 Republican National Convention. On the eve of the convention, he gave a press conference where he said this exact phrase. It wasn't an observation that crime begets more crime. It was a threat. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2018/08/07/how-three-violent-days-gripped-a-black-miami-neighborhood-as-nixon-was-nominated-in-1968/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2018/08/07...
    - 83hajfjeijg 6y ago
      This. This post is a perfect example of the kind of desperate digging for dog whistles the american left is obsessed with. IT IS NOT WORKING. To someone outside your bubble you look like a crazy person. Even if you're right, that's not a good look. There are more than enough reasons to dislike, disagree with, hate or fear Trump, but for some reason you people are fucking incapable of finding them and instead hang onto these bizarre conspiracies.
  - evan_ 6y ago
    > It doesn't unequivocally say that at all. It can reasonably be interpreted as: "once people are willing to break the law and start looting, it's not long before there are also people shooting" This is not a reasonable interpretation of the president's words. The previous tweet said that the military is standing by. There can be no mistake: Trump is saying that he will order the US military to kill Americans.
    - 2019-nCoV 6y ago
      Who invested the power in you to decide what the reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous sentence is? There have already been many shootings across the country in the past few hours.
      - rootlocus 6y ago
        > an ambiguous sentence That's not an ambiguous sentence. The thing about Trump supporters that baffles me is, they have the common sense to understand when some his claims are false or hurtful, because they make up excuses for them: they're ambiguous, he was just checking if we were paying attention, etc. even when he refuses to back down and absolutely denies the excuses. But they still enjoy having their prejudices, fears and hates validated whenever Trump's tweets align with their view.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
kccoder 6y ago
I think it's the bit about "looting starts, the shooting starts."
s5300 6y ago
Well, looting had already started hours before he'd posted this. That being said - the President of the United States, just stated on one of the largest social media platforms used in the U.S., that citizens of the U.S. are now to be shot. From his words, immediately. It could even be viewed as "they should've already been shot at" If you don't understand how this is glorifying violence, I don't think you can be made to.
- 2019-nCoV 6y ago
  Where does it unequivocally say that?
  - s5300 6y ago
    Can you stop editing your HN posts after the fact? If you're going to, it's common courtesy on here to state your edit and reason for. Please stop trying to troll.
  - uselesstech 6y ago
    Have you looked up the context of that quote? Here is where that quote originated from Miami Police Chief Walter Headley. It’s very clear the implication is the use of law enforcement and police brutality. “In declaring war on 'young hoodlums, from 15 to 21, who have taken advantage of the civil rights campaign,' Headley said, 'we don’t mind being accused of police brutality.' 'They haven’t seen anything, yet.' Headley said Miami hasn't been troubled with racial disturbances and looting because he let the word filter down, 'When the looting starts, the shooting starts.'" https://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc?a=d&d=DS19671228.2.19&e=-------en--20--1--txt-txIN--------1 https://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc?a=d&d=DS19671228.2.19&e=--...
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - 082349872349872 6y ago
    https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/glorification-of-violence https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/glorification... doesn't seem to have 'unequivocally' anywhere. I am not in favor of looters, but note that https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-19-15.pdf https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-19-15.pdf emphasizes the necessity of graduated response. I presume state militia units share the doctrine (Figure 2.1) that lethal response is only called for in the face of an armed threat, and that it must be the minimum response necessary. (found by googling four words: national guard crowd control; 2nd page of results)
mfkp 6y ago
Really? "When the looting starts, the shooting starts"... in reference to THUGS (which we all know what he means by that euphemism). Can't tell if you're joking, but either way it's in poor taste.

How is that glorifying violence?

rootlocus 6y ago

> when the looting starts, the shooting starts. What part of this isn't?

2019-nCoV 6y ago
It doesn't unequivocally say that at all. It can reasonably be interpreted as: "once people are willing to break the law and start looting, it's not long before there are also people shooting" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor
- s5300 6y ago
  Who are you to try to infer alternative ways a direct statement from the POTUS should be parsed. Surely, you're trolling. HN isn't the place for that.
  - kecupochren 6y ago
    IMHO even HN is being astroturfed already...
    - jacquesm 6y ago
      In the general case: yes, absolutely. But in the specific, to make that claim for an individual account requires a high burden of proof. Some people are just stupid or trolls, not necessarily part of an astroturfing operation.
- hoten 6y ago
  > It can reasonably be interpreted as: "once people are willing to break the law and start looting, it's not long before there are also people shooting" That's definitely not it. Walter Headley, Chief of Miami Police during the 1968 Republican National Convention. On the eve of the convention, he gave a press conference where he said this exact phrase. It wasn't an observation that crime begets more crime. It was a threat. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2018/08/07/how-three-violent-days-gripped-a-black-miami-neighborhood-as-nixon-was-nominated-in-1968/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2018/08/07...
  - 83hajfjeijg 6y ago
    This. This post is a perfect example of the kind of desperate digging for dog whistles the american left is obsessed with. IT IS NOT WORKING. To someone outside your bubble you look like a crazy person. Even if you're right, that's not a good look. There are more than enough reasons to dislike, disagree with, hate or fear Trump, but for some reason you people are fucking incapable of finding them and instead hang onto these bizarre conspiracies.
- evan_ 6y ago
  > It doesn't unequivocally say that at all. It can reasonably be interpreted as: "once people are willing to break the law and start looting, it's not long before there are also people shooting" This is not a reasonable interpretation of the president's words. The previous tweet said that the military is standing by. There can be no mistake: Trump is saying that he will order the US military to kill Americans.
  - 2019-nCoV 6y ago
    Who invested the power in you to decide what the reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous sentence is? There have already been many shootings across the country in the past few hours.
    - rootlocus 6y ago
      > an ambiguous sentence That's not an ambiguous sentence. The thing about Trump supporters that baffles me is, they have the common sense to understand when some his claims are false or hurtful, because they make up excuses for them: they're ambiguous, he was just checking if we were paying attention, etc. even when he refuses to back down and absolutely denies the excuses. But they still enjoy having their prejudices, fears and hates validated whenever Trump's tweets align with their view.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

kccoder 6y ago

I think it's the bit about "looting starts, the shooting starts."

s5300 6y ago

Well, looting had already started hours before he'd posted this. That being said - the President of the United States, just stated on one of the largest social media platforms used in the U.S., that citizens of the U.S. are now to be shot. From his words, immediately. It could even be viewed as "they should've already been shot at" If you don't understand how this is glorifying violence, I don't think you can be made to.

2019-nCoV 6y ago
Where does it unequivocally say that?
- s5300 6y ago
  Can you stop editing your HN posts after the fact? If you're going to, it's common courtesy on here to state your edit and reason for. Please stop trying to troll.
- uselesstech 6y ago
  Have you looked up the context of that quote? Here is where that quote originated from Miami Police Chief Walter Headley. It’s very clear the implication is the use of law enforcement and police brutality. “In declaring war on 'young hoodlums, from 15 to 21, who have taken advantage of the civil rights campaign,' Headley said, 'we don’t mind being accused of police brutality.' 'They haven’t seen anything, yet.' Headley said Miami hasn't been troubled with racial disturbances and looting because he let the word filter down, 'When the looting starts, the shooting starts.'" https://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc?a=d&d=DS19671228.2.19&e=-------en--20--1--txt-txIN--------1 https://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc?a=d&d=DS19671228.2.19&e=--...
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- 082349872349872 6y ago
  https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/glorification-of-violence https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/glorification... doesn't seem to have 'unequivocally' anywhere. I am not in favor of looters, but note that https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-19-15.pdf https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-19-15.pdf emphasizes the necessity of graduated response. I presume state militia units share the doctrine (Figure 2.1) that lethal response is only called for in the face of an armed threat, and that it must be the minimum response necessary. (found by googling four words: national guard crowd control; 2nd page of results)

mfkp 6y ago

Really? "When the looting starts, the shooting starts"... in reference to THUGS (which we all know what he means by that euphemism). Can't tell if you're joking, but either way it's in poor taste.