9 ms·
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
by slg 6y ago
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.
- shiado 6y agoThat's a fair point. I'm not defending Trump's tweet, but it seems defining violence glorification is arbitrary. It would be funny if Twitter adds a rule that says you can be an organization whose whole purpose is to make devices that kill people as long as you don't glorify making devices that kill people.
- Aeolun 6y agoI think that's pretty much what they're already saying?
- celticninja 6y agoisn't that any gun company?
- tehwebguy 6y agoGlorification? He is instructing police to shoot protestors as long as there is looting.
- TechBro8615 6y agoHe 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 National Guard is not going to do that. But at the end of the day, this is the commander in chief making a public statement, and Twitter is editorializing it. Make of that what you will.
- DavideNL 6y agoHe may be commander in chief, but even commanders in chief have to follow certain laws / moral rules. Just observing his behavior during speeches and such, it should be obvious to anyone that Trumps mental state is... abnormal, and needs to be corrected.
- pm90 6y agoAs commander in chief he has many ways of communicating with the nation. Threatening violence on Americans on a private platform that explicitly forbids such actions is expressly not allowed and Twitter is well within their rights to “editorialize” it.
- tomp 6y agoWhat is a realistic solution though? Police == violence, we might want to pretend that's not true, but it is. The threat of greater violence (a.k.a. police attacking you, throwing you into jail or even killing you) is what keeps lesser violence (individuals looting, murdering) at bay in civilized, democratic societies.
- tehwebguy 6y agoThe solution is for MPD to do their fucking jobs and arrest the murderer. This entire thing is happening because they refuse to simply arrest a man that has been caught on camera slowly murdering a man, simply because he is a cop. Even if they arrested him and let him bond out (which is what would happen to any non-police individual in this scenario) there would have been zero destruction. Zero.
- tomp 6y agoYour comment was removed because it's advocating for violence.
- onemoresoop 6y agoYeah but think about the cops morale, they would be revoked the carte blanche aka the licence to kill (freely and pretend it was an accident)