3 ms·

I wonder if it is something to do with this information: https://twitter.com/HawleyMO/status/1328461277971288067?s=20 https://twitter.com/HawleyMO/status/13284

I wonder if it is something to do with this information: https://twitter.com/HawleyMO/status/1328461277971288067?s=20 https://twitter.com/HawleyMO/status/1328461277971288067?s=20 Josh Hawley is a US Senator for Missouri.

komali2 6y ago
Josh Hawley often promotes the meme that Google, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube censor conservatives and conservative politicians. I have an extremely difficult time taking people like him seriously in a world where Facebook refuses to ban Steve Bannon when he calls for Dr. Fauci to be beheaded, yet twitter does so without issue. But then again, Twitter refuses to address covid-19 misinformation, and allows politicians to generally say whatever they want, conservative or no. All while youtube does nothing about qanon conspiracy videos flooding the platform. It's just a shame that american politicians now have to be hardline partisans to the point where they will lie right into the microphone to toe the party line.
- esja 6y ago
  Bannon didn't literally call for Fauci to be beheaded. He was using a fairly old-fashioned figure of speech to call for Fauci to be fired and for an example to be made of him. If that sort of comment warrants a ban, half the sports fans on Earth will lose their Facebook accounts.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    The quote in full context (https://www.businessinsider.com/steve-bannon-banned-twitter-fauci-and-wrays-heads-on-pikes-2020-11 https://www.businessinsider.com/steve-bannon-banned-twitter-...) was: -------- "I'd actually like to go back to the old times of Tudor England, I'd put the heads on pikes, right, I'd put them at the two corners of the White House as a warning to federal bureaucrats. You either get with the program or you're gone — time to stop playing games. Blow it all up, put [Trump aide] Ric Grenell today as the interim head of the FBI, that'll light them up, right." Jack Maxey, the podcast's co-host, responded: "Just yesterday there was the anniversary of the hanging of two Tories in Philadelphia. These were Quaker businessmen who had cohabitated, if you will, with the British while they were occupying Philadelphia. These people were hung. This is what we used to do to traitors." To this Bannon replied: "That's how you won the revolution. No one wants to talk about it. The revolution wasn't some sort of garden party, right? It was a civil war. It was a civil war." -------- I think it's pretty fair to characterize this as "literal". It's hard to read this (or listen to it, it was originally in audio form) and not think they're legitimately mulling over the possibility of executions.
    - esja 6y ago
      I listened to the podcast in question and the following one where he elaborated further. It was very clearly not intended to be taken literally. It was no different to the sorts of things you hear in pubs when people are talking about football referees.
      - komali2 6y ago
        Maybe it was clear to you because you think it would be crazy to start beheading government advisors for the crime of trying to do their job. However, we've seen plenty of instances where this kind of rhetoric can enable the less stable elements of the population. Pizzagate resulting in a guy holding up a pizza shop he was convinced had child sex slaves in the basement immediately comes to mind. A plot to kidnap a governor comes to mind. Fantasizing about running over protesters, and then James Alex Fields Jr. doing just that and murdering Heather Heyer comes to mind.
        esja 6y ago
        I happen to agree but now you're making a different argument, which is that Bannon was not being literal, but that such speech is dangerous anyway because of the sorts of people who might take it literally (as you did). It's hard to know where to draw the line. Twitter and Facebook will find it very difficult to detect hyperbole, sarcasm, etc. And neither platform seems interested in spending their billions to hire the type and number of people required for proper monitoring.
    - TechBro8615 6y ago
      He also didn’t say it on Twitter.
  - triceratops 6y ago
    Full quote: "Second term kicks off with firing Wray, firing Fauci. Now I actually want to go a step farther, but I realize the president is a kind-hearted man and a good man. I’d actually like to go back to the old times of Tudor England, I’d put the heads on pikes". I'd be inclined to believe your interpretation but he himself has already ruled out the figurative meaning of the phrase "pikes on head" with the first sentence in that quote, by saying he wants to "go farther" than that. Beyond firing, how exactly can you "make an example" of an employee?
- dx87 6y ago
  Saying that he called for beheading is deliberately misunderstanding what he said. "Put their heads on pikes", "heads will roll", etc., are hyerpbolic phrases, and shouldn't be taken literally. It'd be like saying that someone should get kicked out of office is threatening to physical harm, or that saying someone should be fired means their belongings should be thrown out of the office and set on fire.
  - esja 6y ago
    Something strange seems to have happened to America in the past ten or so years. People seem to have become hyper-literal and unable to detect any sarcasm, hyperbole, etc. I wonder whether this is due to spending more and more time communicating via the written word.
    - greesil 6y ago
      It probably wasn't a death threat, but I could see how someone might interpret that way. In the past 10 years? Deliberate misinterpretation of a joke or sarcasm is not a new thing.
      - esja 6y ago
        I don't remember it being quite so bad in the nineties. It feels like a "medium is the message" type of effect where textual communication has become predominant even in the mainstream (no longer just usenet flamewars), and people have been trained to hyper-focus on just the words in front of them and ignore any potential context.
      - toast0 6y ago
        I mean, it's certainly not a plausible death threat. Steve Bannon isn't in charge of anything anymore, and I don't think he would be put in charge again, even if there was a second term. It could be a non-plausible death threat though. And it's probably glorification of violence. I'd hate to be an arbiter of policies like this though. There's a line here between legally sanctionable speech (which I don't think this quote is), and what Twitter allows on its site.

komali2 6y ago

Josh Hawley often promotes the meme that Google, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube censor conservatives and conservative politicians. I have an extremely difficult time taking people like him seriously in a world where Facebook refuses to ban Steve Bannon when he calls for Dr. Fauci to be beheaded, yet twitter does so without issue. But then again, Twitter refuses to address covid-19 misinformation, and allows politicians to generally say whatever they want, conservative or no. All while youtube does nothing about qanon conspiracy videos flooding the platform. It's just a shame that american politicians now have to be hardline partisans to the point where they will lie right into the microphone to toe the party line.

esja 6y ago
Bannon didn't literally call for Fauci to be beheaded. He was using a fairly old-fashioned figure of speech to call for Fauci to be fired and for an example to be made of him. If that sort of comment warrants a ban, half the sports fans on Earth will lose their Facebook accounts.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  The quote in full context (https://www.businessinsider.com/steve-bannon-banned-twitter-fauci-and-wrays-heads-on-pikes-2020-11 https://www.businessinsider.com/steve-bannon-banned-twitter-...) was: -------- "I'd actually like to go back to the old times of Tudor England, I'd put the heads on pikes, right, I'd put them at the two corners of the White House as a warning to federal bureaucrats. You either get with the program or you're gone — time to stop playing games. Blow it all up, put [Trump aide] Ric Grenell today as the interim head of the FBI, that'll light them up, right." Jack Maxey, the podcast's co-host, responded: "Just yesterday there was the anniversary of the hanging of two Tories in Philadelphia. These were Quaker businessmen who had cohabitated, if you will, with the British while they were occupying Philadelphia. These people were hung. This is what we used to do to traitors." To this Bannon replied: "That's how you won the revolution. No one wants to talk about it. The revolution wasn't some sort of garden party, right? It was a civil war. It was a civil war." -------- I think it's pretty fair to characterize this as "literal". It's hard to read this (or listen to it, it was originally in audio form) and not think they're legitimately mulling over the possibility of executions.
  - esja 6y ago
    I listened to the podcast in question and the following one where he elaborated further. It was very clearly not intended to be taken literally. It was no different to the sorts of things you hear in pubs when people are talking about football referees.
    - komali2 6y ago
      Maybe it was clear to you because you think it would be crazy to start beheading government advisors for the crime of trying to do their job. However, we've seen plenty of instances where this kind of rhetoric can enable the less stable elements of the population. Pizzagate resulting in a guy holding up a pizza shop he was convinced had child sex slaves in the basement immediately comes to mind. A plot to kidnap a governor comes to mind. Fantasizing about running over protesters, and then James Alex Fields Jr. doing just that and murdering Heather Heyer comes to mind.
      - esja 6y ago
        I happen to agree but now you're making a different argument, which is that Bannon was not being literal, but that such speech is dangerous anyway because of the sorts of people who might take it literally (as you did). It's hard to know where to draw the line. Twitter and Facebook will find it very difficult to detect hyperbole, sarcasm, etc. And neither platform seems interested in spending their billions to hire the type and number of people required for proper monitoring.
  - TechBro8615 6y ago
    He also didn’t say it on Twitter.
- triceratops 6y ago
  Full quote: "Second term kicks off with firing Wray, firing Fauci. Now I actually want to go a step farther, but I realize the president is a kind-hearted man and a good man. I’d actually like to go back to the old times of Tudor England, I’d put the heads on pikes". I'd be inclined to believe your interpretation but he himself has already ruled out the figurative meaning of the phrase "pikes on head" with the first sentence in that quote, by saying he wants to "go farther" than that. Beyond firing, how exactly can you "make an example" of an employee?
dx87 6y ago
Saying that he called for beheading is deliberately misunderstanding what he said. "Put their heads on pikes", "heads will roll", etc., are hyerpbolic phrases, and shouldn't be taken literally. It'd be like saying that someone should get kicked out of office is threatening to physical harm, or that saying someone should be fired means their belongings should be thrown out of the office and set on fire.
- esja 6y ago
  Something strange seems to have happened to America in the past ten or so years. People seem to have become hyper-literal and unable to detect any sarcasm, hyperbole, etc. I wonder whether this is due to spending more and more time communicating via the written word.
  - greesil 6y ago
    It probably wasn't a death threat, but I could see how someone might interpret that way. In the past 10 years? Deliberate misinterpretation of a joke or sarcasm is not a new thing.
    - esja 6y ago
      I don't remember it being quite so bad in the nineties. It feels like a "medium is the message" type of effect where textual communication has become predominant even in the mainstream (no longer just usenet flamewars), and people have been trained to hyper-focus on just the words in front of them and ignore any potential context.
    - toast0 6y ago
      I mean, it's certainly not a plausible death threat. Steve Bannon isn't in charge of anything anymore, and I don't think he would be put in charge again, even if there was a second term. It could be a non-plausible death threat though. And it's probably glorification of violence. I'd hate to be an arbiter of policies like this though. There's a line here between legally sanctionable speech (which I don't think this quote is), and what Twitter allows on its site.