10 ms·

"I cannot stand by Facebook’s continued refusal to act on the president’s bigoted messages aimed at radicalizing the American public." What is this message and

• CodeWriter23 6y ago
  Watch CNN/MSNBC instead of the raw feed on The White House YouTube channel.
• malloreon 6y ago
  You must have missed when trump tweeted/fbed “when the looting starts, the shooting starts” late last week.
  • eanzenberg 6y ago
    And it has, as people take the law into their own hands. Unfortunately in 2020 we’re still arguing whether violence is ok.
  • 99_00 6y ago
    He clarified his comments and his explanation is not inflammatory. "Looting leads to shooting, and that's why a man was shot and killed in Minneapolis on Wednesday night - or look at what just happened in Louisville with 7 people shot," Trump tweeted https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-defends-his-when-the-looting-starts-the-shooting-starts-tweet-2020-5 https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-defends-his-when-the-l... People should be given a chance to explain what they said if it is misinterpreted. Focusing on the misinterpretation after the explanation has been made is in-fact inflammatory and divisive.
    • malloreon 6y ago
      It’s been way too many years to give trump the benefit of the doubt. His words are never misinterpreted.
      • ogre_magi 6y ago
        ... never? People are always correct to choose the most inflammatory interpretation?
    • IvyMike 6y ago
      His explanation feels disingenuous in the context of his other tweets, his "you have to dominate" statements, and the use of the military the past few days. Trump has continued to escalate things, and while I hope that it doesn't lead to shooting, it feels plausible that Trump would threaten people with "thats where things are heading!" (The origins of the of the "looting leads to shooting" statement should also speak for itself. I know Trump claims ignorance of that statement, but there are reasons to doubt that as well.)
      • SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
        Recent polling suggests a majority of Americans would like to see the military used, so this isn't exactly a fringe call to violence. And it doesn't split along many of the fault lines you might expect either; 48% of Democrats and 37% of African-Americans are on board. (https://assets.morningconsult.com/wp-uploads/2020/06/01181629/2005131_crosstabs_POLICE_RVs_FINAL_LM-1.pdf https://assets.morningconsult.com/wp-uploads/2020/06/0118162...)
        • AnimalMuppet 6y ago
          That's the most frightening thing I've heard in this entire mess. The rule against the military intervening in domestic affairs is hugely important. We can't afford to lose that in the heat of the moment.
          • SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
            Do remember that the military was deployed to quell domestic riots as recently as 1992. It's a big failure if we end up having to do it, but it's not an unprecedented nor unrecoverable one.
            • AnimalMuppet 6y ago
              If the state wants it, I have no problem with it. If the state doesn't want it, though, and Trump says "You're getting them anyway, because you're out of control", well, that's quite different.
    • tzs 6y ago
      Then maybe he should run his Tweets by his staff before posting, so things like this that might be easily misinterpreted could be caught and clarified before they go out? Look at another recent Tweet of his: "STRENGTH!" in response to someone else's Tweet. That other Tweet was from some QAnon conspiracy theorist referencing a QAnon thing about how Trump and military will soon be arresting and imprisoning or executing Democrats. QAnon follows took Trump's Tweet as confirming that this was going to start soon. Maybe Trump didn't know what that other Tweet was referencing, and he didn't mean to encourage it. But he's the freaking PRESIDENT. His words automatically have a huge impact, and so the responsible thing to do would be to take care with them.
      • 99_00 6y ago
        >Look at another recent Tweet of his: "STRENGTH!" in response to someone else's Tweet. That other Tweet was from some QAnon conspiracy theorist referencing a QAnon thing about how Trump and military will soon be arresting and imprisoning or executing Democrats. QAnon follows took Trump's Tweet as confirming that this was going to start soon. Can you clarify what you mean? Are you saying Trump retweeted a call to imprison and execute democrats, because I looked into this and it looks to me like that was not at all the case. On the face of it, it looks to be an inspirational Ronald Regan quote. https://twitter.com/joep1776/status/1267222813334663169/photo/1 https://twitter.com/joep1776/status/1267222813334663169/phot...
        • tzs 6y ago
          It's a SeanCordicon tweet that Trump is retreating. The content of that tweet is: > We knew this moment would arrive. > We are the calm before, during & after the storm. followed by a Reagan quote. Cordicon is a QAnon conspiracy theorist. "The Storm" is a prominent thing in QAnon stuff [1][2] about how Trump will impose martial law to quell unrest and then he and the military will use that for a quiet coup to purge the government of Democrats and others. [1] https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/QAnon#.22The_Storm.22 https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/QAnon#.22The_Storm.22 [2] https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/12/qanon-4chan-the-storm-conspiracy-explained.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/12/qanon-4chan-the-stor...
  • jki275 6y ago
    Are you arguing that looting and rioting are free speech? That would be an argument mostly without legal precedent or support.
    • dbt00 6y ago
      Are you arguing that property crimes should result In summary execution?
      • jki275 6y ago
        How exactly did you torture what I wrote to get that out of it?
        • DFHippie 6y ago
          looting : property crime :: shooting : summary execution
          • jki275 6y ago
            Which is not what I wrote. straw man somewhere else.
    • thinkharderdev 6y ago
      I don't think anyone is seriously arguing that. But it would be nice if the President of the United States would act like a grown up and when tensions are running high try and calm the situation instead of adding fuel to the fire. It is actually possible to try and deal with situations in a measured, substantive way instead of going on Twitter and making incendiary statements.
      • jki275 6y ago
        I don't disagree with you there and have always hated the way the President uses Twitter, but in times of massive civil unrest (this isn't it, btw -- this is but a small bit of noise), there are times when ultimatums must be put down.
  • downandout 6y ago
    How is it bigoted to observe that people breaking into businesses with weapons, baseball bats, etc., in an attempt to try to steal from and destroy them, might get shot at by business owners in fear of their lives? I’m genuinely curious to hear an explanation from your perspective, because I don’t see it - I see it as a pretty logical conclusion that such a thing might happen, regardless of the race of anyone involved.
    • hejja 6y ago
      this is the very problem with censorship. messages aren't exact so on some level you have to be subjective. the very fact that twitter interpreted it as bigoted enough to sensor, and you didn't points a red arrow to why any censorship is bad.
• kilo_bravo_3 6y ago
  "thugs" is "alt-right" for the bad word for black people. Trump uses it constantly. Threatening "no quarter" against rioters is to suggest that smashing windows deserves the death penalty without trial. And that's just in the last 24 or so hours. Members of his death cult will reply "oh he was keeeeeeeding" or "he didn't mean that" while the administration has argued in the Supreme Court that his social media messages are official communications of the office of the president of the united states of america.
  • ryall 6y ago
    Interestingly, threatening “no quarter” is a war crime [1] > Under the modern laws of war, "it is especially forbidden ... to declare that no quarter will be given". This was established under Article 23(d) of the 1907 Hague Convention "IV – The Laws and Customs of War on Land".[6] > Since a judgment on the law relating to war crimes and crimes against humanity at the Nuremberg Trials in October 1946, the 1907 Hague Convention, including the explicit prohibition against declaring that no quarter will be given, is considered to be part of the customary laws of war and binding on all parties in an international armed conflict. [1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_quarter https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_quarter
    • AnimalMuppet 6y ago
      Note, however, that this is not an international armed conflict. (Not that that matters. The rules should be better when dealing with our own people, not worse.)
  • aksss 6y ago
    "thugs" has a definition that's not racist. That definition predates any layering of secret meaning you're ascribing to it here. Trump didn't say "no quarter", that was Tom Cotton.
    • kilo_bravo_3 6y ago
      "Thug" does have a definition that is not racist. So does "monkey". Death cultists will claim that monkey is non-racist, when used by bigots, too. "WUH WUH WUH ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT BRUH 1488 ISN'T RACIST IT'S JUST NUMBERS"
• jswrenn 6y ago
  I'm guessing the context is Facebook's and Twitter's differing reactions to Trump's recent online postings. At a glance, this article seems like a thorough review of the situation: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/29/technology/twitter-facebook-zuckerberg-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/29/technology/twitter-facebo...
• aeturnum 6y ago
  They are reacting to this message[1], which includes the phrase "when the looting starts, the shooting starts." It's a phrase that has been used as a pretext for violence against protests[2]. As mentioned in [2], Twitter reacted to the message on their platform. Facebook has the same policy against using their platform to incite or glorify violence[3], but have chosen not to enforce it (or disagree that it is an incitement to violence). [1] https://www.facebook.com/DonaldTrump/posts/10164767134275725 https://www.facebook.com/DonaldTrump/posts/10164767134275725 [2] https://www.npr.org/2020/05/29/864818368/the-history-behind-when-the-looting-starts-the-shooting-starts https://www.npr.org/2020/05/29/864818368/the-history-behind-... [3] https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/credible_violence https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/credible_violenc...
  • Aunche 6y ago
    Trying to stop the President from inciting violence isn't the responsibility of Facebook. People have a right to know what the President is saying and his hostile intentions. If the President says a bunch of racist and violent things in the State of the Union address, would you also blame ABC for airing it?
    • aeturnum 6y ago
      >Trying to stop the President from inciting violence isn't the responsibility of Facebook. I didn't say it was, nor is that my read of the issue at hand. Facebook choosing not to host a message does not stop the message from being said. It would just be said elsewhere. >People have a right to know what the President is saying and his hostile intentions. I am not under the impression that Facebook is the exclusive source of information for presentenial statements. I understand they are also frequently run in other media. > If the President says a bunch of racist and violent things in the State of the Union address, would you also blame ABC for airing it? I haven't said anything about blaming anyone. Someone asked what message was controversial and I linked the message along with an explanation of the controversy. If you think I'm taking a position I'd appreciate you speaking directly instead of imputing intent. I also don't really understand your question. I would "blame" ABC in that I would expect them to account for how they chose to cover it (whatever that form took).