Hacker News Reader

Comment by dx87 | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

Ok but he said:

"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, right, I’d put them at the two corners of the White House as a warning to federal bureaucrats."

You're saying "pikes on heads" is a figure of speech, meaning firing and making an example of them. But he's saying "let's go beyond just firing". So what does "heads on pikes" mean in the context of the quote? Seriously, I'm trying to understand. How does one make an example of an employee you're displeased with, beyond firing them? Write really mean tweets about them? Fuck with their pensions? What?

He said he'd put their heads on spikes on the corners of the White House as a warning to others which is not a figure of speech. How is that figurative in any way other than he hasn't done it. Nothing Fauci has done deserves that sort of violent rhetoric either.

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.

We're all familiar with the figurative meaning of "heads on pikes". This not a problem of reading comprehension or not understanding hyperbole or sarcasm. The problem is Bannon himself ruled out the figurative, hyperbolic meaning of the saying when he said it. Here's the complete quote:

"Second term kicks off with firing Wray, firing Fauci. Now I actually want to go a step farther...I’d actually like to go back to the old times of Tudor England, I’d put the heads on pikes".

So please explain to me. What does "heads on pikes" mean if the person who said it has discounted the "fire in disgrace" interpretation of the saying? This is a serious question. What do you think it really means, taking the entire quote into context?

(funnily this is a rare instance where a quote that sounds fine out of context takes on a sinister note when surrounding quotes are included)

EDIT: I see downvotes, but no answers to what I thought was a very simple question.

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.

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.

I'm not sure that not being in the government makes a death threat implausible. It may even make it more so. Whitey Bulger apparently ordered a few deaths that were carried out.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/10/31/whitey...

Oh sure, but the quote was like 'the second term would start with firing ...' and then goes on to say the bit about the murdering. I would interpret that as a strong hypothetical 'if I were in charge, I'd do these things.' Just as he's not likely able to fire people, I would interpret it as he has no plans to murder them either.

There's certainly some interpretation there, but the bar for legal sanctions on a death threat in the US is pretty high, and I don't think this meets it. It's not too far off though, a couple of different word choices, and it might be.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com