Comment by tripzilch

The outcome was clear the moment a president mentioned the use of the national guard in dealing with demonstrations.

Using the military to quell civil unrest means people getting shot. Last time in 1992 on the order of George HW Bush, the resulted was 50 dead and 2000 injured.

Unless a person is talking about using the military to assist with natural disasters, the person is envisioning the violence of "when the looting starts, the shooting starts".

You cannot not have bias when you are talking politics. For Tweeter’s case, one would need to look at statistics for how many tweets from each sides are getting flagged. If one side is getting all the flake then it means that side is evil and other side is holy. In politics, this is not possible over long term if democracy is in full effect.

WRT "... Is everything that disagrees with Trump now "political bias"?.."

I think much of the media (bbc, reuters, vox, cnbc, msnbc, abc, cnn, buzzfeed, huffingtonpost, twitter's leadership) basically are the propaganda arm of the anti-Trump Coup.

The use a multi-level approach to execute and to protect it:

- to keep legitimacy of their disinformation efforts, keep 10-15% of the reporting as 'neutral', and then flood the 90% of the time with anti-president message.

This tactic allows for what I call: Plausible Deniability.

When you confront these propagandists about the majority of their disinformation compaign, they point to the '10%' and then claim plausible deniability ('eg we do not do everything wrong)

- Use War propaganda tactics [2]. With emphasis on 4 (We are defending a noble cause, not our particular interests!) and 5 (The enemy is purposefully committing atrocities; if we are making mistakes this happens without intention)

- instigate unrest (and there are a number of tactics to do this, as we are seeing being unrolled)

When you use the above decomposition, it is, at least for me, easy to see what is going on and why.

With regards to:

>".. Could you write down these opinions as if they were your own, without violating HN's house rules?.."

Sure. So let me re-iterate the context

Trump's tweet: >"... ....These THUGS are dishonering the memory of George Floyd, and I won't let that happen. Just spoke to Governor Tim Walz and told him that the Military is with him all the way. Any Difficult and we will assume control, but when looting starts, the the shooting starts.

Thank you. ..."

The twitter suggests that the above is glorifying violence.

I think that an opinion, it is a wrong opinion. And leads to more violence.

I would interpret Trump's message as:

- Laws will be enforced. Help to local police is on the way (in the form of National Guard that Tim Woltz mobilized [1]).

- Physical harm to Innocent people and their property will lead to shootings.

I would interpret Twitter's handling of this as: we do not want law enforcement to enforce laws. Loot all you want, it is your right under the circumstances.

[1] https://www.newsmax.com/politics/tim-walz-george-floyd-riots...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Basic_Principles_of_War_Pr...