4 ms·

I'm just going to say again that I can't for the life of me understand why people are in agreement that this tweet glorifies violence. It is a call to stop bein

I'm just going to say again that I can't for the life of me understand why people are in agreement that this tweet glorifies violence. It is a call to stop being violent lest violence increase. Looting always leads to shooting. This is a simple fact. I'm horrified that so many people think me saying that is glorifying violence. I don't understand it in the slightest. Seeing this tweet by Trump get silenced absolutely convinces me that there is a conspiracy. Not so much against the right, but against truth.

dmode 6y ago
You should read up on the history of the phrase "when looting starts, shooting starts"
- koheripbal 6y ago
  I read up on it's use in 1967. ...and it didn't really add anything. Looting leads to police/national guard having to restore order through violence. There's no hidden meaning here.
  - thethethethe 6y ago
    It was used by a racist police chief in reference to black protesters during the _civil rights movement_, which I think we can all agree is on the right side of history. The parallels are pretty clear to me, I’m not sure what you are missing here
    - will4274 6y ago
      The fact that the police chief was racist doesn't make him wrong. He can be both racist and correct that looting generally leads to shooting.
      - thethethethe 6y ago
        > He can be both racist and correct that looting generally leads to shooting. It appears as though you are deliberately misinterpreting this statement to confirm your biases. This statement is obviously intended to be interpreted as “the state will shoot looters (and possibly other protesters) when there is looting during a political protest”. If you genuinely don’t see it this way after considering all of contextual history of racial violence and injustice, it must benefit you to have your head in the sand
        zepto 6y ago
        I don’t think there needs to be anything deliberate about it. My guess is that there is a huge set of people who doesn’t know the origin, and see the statement as more of a statement of fact.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
- rhegart 6y ago
  I say with great confidence that Trump is too stupid to know this. Maybe Stephen Miller his far right aide did and pushed the line as a dog whistle but tbh I never heard of it either till now.
wmkn 6y ago
Because the exact phrase has historical context [1] in a sense of: if you loot, we shoot. Clearly it wasn’t said in a sense of: looting inevitably leads to violence. That makes it sound like Trump used it in a similar fashion. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/where-does-phrase-when-looting-starts-shooting-starts-come-n1217676 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/where-does-phrase-...
- gweinberg 6y ago
  Looting doesn't lead to violence, looting is violence.
  - wmkn 6y ago
    Fair point. ‘Looting inevitably leads to innocent people getting shot’ is probably not what Trump meant.
    - jtbayly 6y ago
      Looting will and must lead to the police taking action to do their most basic job—protecting the life and property of the people. This means almost certainly people will be shot, some guilty, some innocent.
      - wmkn 6y ago
        Shooting should not be the starting point of law enforcement. Shooting should be a last resort. Implying that looting indiscriminately means shooting is a call to violence.
        jtbayly 6y ago
        He never said it was the first resort, or that shooting should or will be indiscriminate. I'm done here. You're not arguing. You're simply begging the question.
        6y ago
pfkurtz 6y ago
Fascist language is generally constructed to externalize blame. That doesn't mean its calls for "peace measures" are not calls to harm those people. Trump has been inciting racist violence for years. Take your head out of the sand. Context matters.
everdrive 6y ago
This raises an interesting point. I think the realistic truth is that Trump doesn't really have a precise idea about what he's saying quite a bit of the time. His defenders rush in, and shape his words into their best possible light, and of course his opponents shape his words into their worst possible light. Which version did Trump mean? Almost certainly neither: his modus operandi has been to say many vague things, and gauge the reaction to determine his next steps. Part of this process means simply speaking a LOT, and saying things that are vague and inflammatory. What better way to read a reaction than to ensure you create a reaction in the first place? In this sense, his words only have as much power as we keep giving them, and yet no one one seems to have learned this lesson. You seem intelligent and well-spoken. I believe that when you say "looting always to leads shooting" you mean something like "when people are looting, it's unfortunately almost inevitable that there will be violence." (Please correct me if I've got you wrong.) When Trump says it, he doesn't tend to mean anything in particular. As usual, he's trying to drum up controversy. And so, there's a difference in context between when you might say it, and when the president says it. It's not simply the case that I believe you hold a genuine belief, and that Trump is pressure testing his next controversy. It's also the case that you're a private citizen, willing to explain and qualify your claims, while Trump is the head of country, intentionally saying inflammatory things during difficult times. [edit] Apologies, I actually had no idea there was a particular history to the phrase "when looting starts, shooting starts"
- jtbayly 6y ago
  You may be right. My only nit with what you said is with this: "when people are looting, it's unfortunately almost inevitable that there will be violence." I would say that looting is violence. I would further add three things. 1. that self defense is justified when violence against your person and property is committed. 2. Even more importantly, it is the job of the police to stop these violent crimes, at gunpoint if necessary. 3. Even more tellingly, if anybody here's livelihood or home was getting looted that person would be calling the police to do their job.
jasondigitized 6y ago
Other people will perceive it as glorifying and advocating violence regardless of how you or I see it. You can rightfully be horrified but it doesn't change the fact that this tweet arguably increases the probability of more violence happening. There is at least one person that read this tweet and interpreted it as a call to violence and that is the problem. Words matter and should be used carefully.

dmode 6y ago

You should read up on the history of the phrase "when looting starts, shooting starts"

koheripbal 6y ago
I read up on it's use in 1967. ...and it didn't really add anything. Looting leads to police/national guard having to restore order through violence. There's no hidden meaning here.
- thethethethe 6y ago
  It was used by a racist police chief in reference to black protesters during the _civil rights movement_, which I think we can all agree is on the right side of history. The parallels are pretty clear to me, I’m not sure what you are missing here
  - will4274 6y ago
    The fact that the police chief was racist doesn't make him wrong. He can be both racist and correct that looting generally leads to shooting.
    - thethethethe 6y ago
      > He can be both racist and correct that looting generally leads to shooting. It appears as though you are deliberately misinterpreting this statement to confirm your biases. This statement is obviously intended to be interpreted as “the state will shoot looters (and possibly other protesters) when there is looting during a political protest”. If you genuinely don’t see it this way after considering all of contextual history of racial violence and injustice, it must benefit you to have your head in the sand
      - zepto 6y ago
        I don’t think there needs to be anything deliberate about it. My guess is that there is a huge set of people who doesn’t know the origin, and see the statement as more of a statement of fact.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
rhegart 6y ago
I say with great confidence that Trump is too stupid to know this. Maybe Stephen Miller his far right aide did and pushed the line as a dog whistle but tbh I never heard of it either till now.

wmkn 6y ago

Because the exact phrase has historical context [1] in a sense of: if you loot, we shoot. Clearly it wasn’t said in a sense of: looting inevitably leads to violence. That makes it sound like Trump used it in a similar fashion. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/where-does-phrase-when-looting-starts-shooting-starts-come-n1217676 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/where-does-phrase-...

gweinberg 6y ago
Looting doesn't lead to violence, looting is violence.
- wmkn 6y ago
  Fair point. ‘Looting inevitably leads to innocent people getting shot’ is probably not what Trump meant.
  - jtbayly 6y ago
    Looting will and must lead to the police taking action to do their most basic job—protecting the life and property of the people. This means almost certainly people will be shot, some guilty, some innocent.
    - wmkn 6y ago
      Shooting should not be the starting point of law enforcement. Shooting should be a last resort. Implying that looting indiscriminately means shooting is a call to violence.
      - jtbayly 6y ago
        He never said it was the first resort, or that shooting should or will be indiscriminate. I'm done here. You're not arguing. You're simply begging the question.
        6y ago

pfkurtz 6y ago

Fascist language is generally constructed to externalize blame. That doesn't mean its calls for "peace measures" are not calls to harm those people. Trump has been inciting racist violence for years. Take your head out of the sand. Context matters.

everdrive 6y ago

This raises an interesting point. I think the realistic truth is that Trump doesn't really have a precise idea about what he's saying quite a bit of the time. His defenders rush in, and shape his words into their best possible light, and of course his opponents shape his words into their worst possible light. Which version did Trump mean? Almost certainly neither: his modus operandi has been to say many vague things, and gauge the reaction to determine his next steps. Part of this process means simply speaking a LOT, and saying things that are vague and inflammatory. What better way to read a reaction than to ensure you create a reaction in the first place? In this sense, his words only have as much power as we keep giving them, and yet no one one seems to have learned this lesson. You seem intelligent and well-spoken. I believe that when you say "looting always to leads shooting" you mean something like "when people are looting, it's unfortunately almost inevitable that there will be violence." (Please correct me if I've got you wrong.) When Trump says it, he doesn't tend to mean anything in particular. As usual, he's trying to drum up controversy. And so, there's a difference in context between when you might say it, and when the president says it. It's not simply the case that I believe you hold a genuine belief, and that Trump is pressure testing his next controversy. It's also the case that you're a private citizen, willing to explain and qualify your claims, while Trump is the head of country, intentionally saying inflammatory things during difficult times. [edit] Apologies, I actually had no idea there was a particular history to the phrase "when looting starts, shooting starts"

jtbayly 6y ago
You may be right. My only nit with what you said is with this: "when people are looting, it's unfortunately almost inevitable that there will be violence." I would say that looting is violence. I would further add three things. 1. that self defense is justified when violence against your person and property is committed. 2. Even more importantly, it is the job of the police to stop these violent crimes, at gunpoint if necessary. 3. Even more tellingly, if anybody here's livelihood or home was getting looted that person would be calling the police to do their job.

jasondigitized 6y ago

Other people will perceive it as glorifying and advocating violence regardless of how you or I see it. You can rightfully be horrified but it doesn't change the fact that this tweet arguably increases the probability of more violence happening. There is at least one person that read this tweet and interpreted it as a call to violence and that is the problem. Words matter and should be used carefully.