3 ms·

It would be inappropriate if the boss said "Susan Williams and Mark Goldwyn, if you don't get this done I'm going to cut your heads off and mount them on the ma

It would be inappropriate if the boss said "Susan Williams and Mark Goldwyn, if you don't get this done I'm going to cut your heads off and mount them on the main entrance as a warning to the other employees". Notice how my example has similarities to what Bannon actually said, and therefore sounds far more inappropriate. Let's also keep in mind that this hypothetical "boss" is probably not linked to various groups known for frequently making death threats and engaging in political violence.

imgabe 6y ago
Both are inappropriate, but even your example I would not take literally unless it were 1350 and my boss were a feudal lord.
- ZeteticElench 6y ago
  Which is why Bannon says he would like to go back to those times.
  - imgabe 6y ago
    And as we all know time travel is a real thing and there is a real risk that he will send the world back in time 700 years.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > And as we all know time travel is a real thing Regress in social norms doesn't require actual time travel, and that happening through normalization of political violence is a real thing, which has happened lots of places, and which Bannon is overtly calling for here, pointing to the mere firing he expects from the President as inadequate. (Making it clear that the call was not a metaphor for firing.)
      - ZeteticElench 6y ago
        Well said.
      - imgabe 6y ago
        We have laws against violence, and we have a justice system and law enforcement to enforce the laws. If they believe there is a credible threat, they should investigate, that is their purpose. We can hold them accountable via voting and their actions should ideally be transparent to the public. If Bannon is part of a real, literal plot to place Fauci's head on a pike at the White House, that is the avenue through which it should be prosecuted, not via some intern at Facebook looking at a couple of posts and making a unilateral decision with no public accountability.
        true_religion 6y ago
        Bannon isn't making any threats. He is calling for the laws to be changed so he can legally execute people for thought crime, and not holding the party line. Essentially, he wants dictatorship. It's not illegal to promote dictatorship but it is gross, and he should be publicly shunned for it.
        dragonwriter 6y ago
        > We have laws against violence, and we have a justice system and law enforcement to enforce the laws. We do. That doesn't conflict with platforms having standards that prohibit advocacy of violence. > If they believe there is a credible threat, they should investigate, that is their purpose. It wasn't a threat, it was advocacy /incitement, which is a different thing. > We can hold them accountable via voting and their actions should ideally be transparent to the public. Their actions, by law, are not transparent to the public, and instead are subject to among the broadest exceptions of any public agencies (beyond defense/intelligence) to transparency laws. Not that your fantasies about law enforcement transparency, even if true, have any relevance to Bannon's incitement. > If Bannon is part of a real, literal plot to place Fauci's head on a pike at the White House, that is the avenue through which it should be prosecuted. A plot/conspiracy is a third thing, different from both a threat and incitement. And no one is talking about prosecution. Facebook isn't a public utility that is somehow obligated to relay and promote all speech equally without filtering with the only controls being after-the-fact actions by law enforcement. You are free to create a service with those terms of use and try to compete with Facebook, if you wish, but that's not what Facebook users have signed up for. And, while I've certainly seen examples of Facebook being overzealous in enforcing their “Community Standards”, this particular case doesn't come close to that.

imgabe 6y ago

Both are inappropriate, but even your example I would not take literally unless it were 1350 and my boss were a feudal lord.

ZeteticElench 6y ago
Which is why Bannon says he would like to go back to those times.
- imgabe 6y ago
  And as we all know time travel is a real thing and there is a real risk that he will send the world back in time 700 years.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > And as we all know time travel is a real thing Regress in social norms doesn't require actual time travel, and that happening through normalization of political violence is a real thing, which has happened lots of places, and which Bannon is overtly calling for here, pointing to the mere firing he expects from the President as inadequate. (Making it clear that the call was not a metaphor for firing.)
    - ZeteticElench 6y ago
      Well said.
    - imgabe 6y ago
      We have laws against violence, and we have a justice system and law enforcement to enforce the laws. If they believe there is a credible threat, they should investigate, that is their purpose. We can hold them accountable via voting and their actions should ideally be transparent to the public. If Bannon is part of a real, literal plot to place Fauci's head on a pike at the White House, that is the avenue through which it should be prosecuted, not via some intern at Facebook looking at a couple of posts and making a unilateral decision with no public accountability.
      - true_religion 6y ago
        Bannon isn't making any threats. He is calling for the laws to be changed so he can legally execute people for thought crime, and not holding the party line. Essentially, he wants dictatorship. It's not illegal to promote dictatorship but it is gross, and he should be publicly shunned for it.
      - dragonwriter 6y ago
        > We have laws against violence, and we have a justice system and law enforcement to enforce the laws. We do. That doesn't conflict with platforms having standards that prohibit advocacy of violence. > If they believe there is a credible threat, they should investigate, that is their purpose. It wasn't a threat, it was advocacy /incitement, which is a different thing. > We can hold them accountable via voting and their actions should ideally be transparent to the public. Their actions, by law, are not transparent to the public, and instead are subject to among the broadest exceptions of any public agencies (beyond defense/intelligence) to transparency laws. Not that your fantasies about law enforcement transparency, even if true, have any relevance to Bannon's incitement. > If Bannon is part of a real, literal plot to place Fauci's head on a pike at the White House, that is the avenue through which it should be prosecuted. A plot/conspiracy is a third thing, different from both a threat and incitement. And no one is talking about prosecution. Facebook isn't a public utility that is somehow obligated to relay and promote all speech equally without filtering with the only controls being after-the-fact actions by law enforcement. You are free to create a service with those terms of use and try to compete with Facebook, if you wish, but that's not what Facebook users have signed up for. And, while I've certainly seen examples of Facebook being overzealous in enforcing their “Community Standards”, this particular case doesn't come close to that.