For years, the defense of these assholes has been “Oh, that’s just rhetoric, it’s not meant to be taken literally.” Well, we’ve just seen what happens when it gets taken literally.
Good riddance to bad rubbish.
"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".
Now the generally understood figurative meaning of putting someone's "head on a pike" is "fire them in disgrace". But Bannon's ruled that one out in the first sentence. So I'm honestly at a loss as to what he meant.
Can you, as a "native-born American citizen", help me understand what his figurative meaning was here? I've asked a bunch of people on here who claimed "no big deal, it was a figure of speech" but they failed to explain what it means.
Explain the joke, please! I'm not trying to take those words literally. I'm just looking for a figurative meaning of "heads on pikes" that makes sense in this context. "Fire them" makes no sense at all. So what is it?
Regarding this incident Zuckerberg didn't ban him at the time because he said that Bannon didn't even violate his sites policy in regards to how many times you have to say things like this before getting banned. He reacted with a removal of the video. Zuckerberg was correct and for all the hate leveled against him he seems to be one of the only people who is resisting political pressure and fighting to enforce policy fairly and unarbitrarily.
An extremely broad amount of people will once or twice say something like this regardless of political affliation and the banning of Bannon here is mostly a mixture of hindsight and bias and arbitrariness. Bannon wasn't banned today based on an equally applied sober reading of social media policy, but because the capitol riots happened. Trumps supporters messed up a building and got themselves killed and that's being used as a pretence to treat other Trump supporters arbitrarily online for the greater good because they're just too dangerous.
Treating Steve Bannon differently is hypocritical and unfair.
> Well, we’ve just seen what happens when it gets taken literally.
Can you quote a specific person saying "go to the capital and break the law and commit violence"? Because I don't think you can find that evidence.
I think people want to use these issues as a way of pointing out hypocrisy that only exists when you think in a culture war way. All nuance is dissolved.
They're despicable, but it is easy to trace exactly how the mainstream rhetoric made this palatable to them.
Does these people also have a YouTube podcast that was taken offline? Or are you trying to point a finger at an unrelated issue and saying, "That is also bad!!"
What you are doing is called whataboutism. We need to evaluate situations with their context.
Constantly pulling in new examples and "they did X which excuses Y" is a child's game. It's the rhetorical equivalent to "they started it!".
For example, I might say, "the BLM was responding to threats of violence from the cops" to which you might respond, "the cops were responding to threats of violence from suspected criminals". We could continue this chain forever, coming up with some other example and historical precedent. It's not productive.
We're here, now in this thread discussing this one event.
> Can you quote a specific person saying "go to the capital and break the law and commit violence"?
I assume you mean on Bannons show? Because there are tons of examples of what you've described in other contexts.