"SEND HER BACK!" Will they defend this?

[johnny karate]

Context, of course. If the comment she should be shot includes a humorous (though insulting) reference to her previous career and if it was made in a private context, I would not view it as a serious threat on her life. If it was made in public, or about a private citizen not in the public eye (so that the deeply expressed annoyance would be genuinely difficult to explain, making the post more mysterious), or made in what appears to be a serious manner, etc., I would take it as a real threat.

See, you and I both know how to use context to interpret writing. The various features I've mentioned are why I don't think that this was a genuine threat. I'm sure that there are other features that do not come readily to mind.

I think reasonable folk can disagree with my assessment that this was not a serious threat, or at least conclude that it is not obvious one way or the other. Indeed, I'd reevaluate if new information came to light and I know that I could be wrong to dismiss the cop's post.

But this was a post by a guy seriously irritated because he wrongly thought AOC complained soldiers are paid too much. That was the context of the writing. I find it very unlikely that he literally meant someone should shoot AOC.

When being wrong could literally have life or death consequences, do you think such hair-splitting is worthwhile?

 

[phiwum]

Maybe already mentioned upthread, but...

Regarding how to stop Hillary, if elected, from nominating liberal Supreme Court judges, Trump said this to a booing crowd:

“If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks,” Mr. Trump said, as the crowd began to boo. He quickly added: “Although the Second Amendment people — maybe there is, I don’t know.”

This sort of vague, conditional pondering about what could or should or might happen is unlikely to cross the line into criminality. First Amendment and all that. But it certainly condones such actions, or at least put them forth as options. Despicable, whether illegal or not.

Yes, absolutely, that was despicable and had the potential to incite violence.

And so, too, does Trump's recent rhetoric. Not quite so heinous as what you mentioned, but heinous nonetheless. I don't deny at all that Trump's actions and statements are likely to lead to violence.

I just don't think that the example of the cop's private Facebook post is evidence of that fact. That's my only point in the recent discussion. Most posters rightly condemned Zig's dumbass example of "AOC-inspired" violence. We should recognize that the cop's post has no obvious connection to Trump's "Love it or leave it" rants, aside from the target of his ire.

 

[phiwum]

When being wrong could literally have life or death consequences, do you think such hair-splitting is worthwhile?

If you heard me in a private conversation insulting and disparaging Trump and then say, in the context of a poor joke, that he oughta be shot, would you alert the Secret Service? Or would you use your own judgment about whether it was a genuine threat or letting off steam?

I have a habit of interpreting the words of others and so do you. We take some comments about violence seriously and others not.

I really don't want to discuss whether the cop's threat was serious or not any more, since indeed it is irrelevant to this thread. There's no clear evidence that it was influenced by Trump's recent rhetoric. It was a reaction to a fake news article about AOC and not connected to her heritage at all.

 

[JoeMorgue]

If you heard me in a private conversation insulting and disparaging Trump and then say, in the context of a poor joke, that he oughta be shot, would you alert the Secret Service?

If you had a secret Facebook group that privately shared jokes and memes about Trump getting shot and that somehow got made public... maybe.

 

[TragicMonkey]

If you had a secret Facebook group that privately shared jokes and memes about Trump getting shot and that somehow got made public... maybe.

Everything is just harmless talk unless somebody attempts something, then the harmless talk is retroactively converted to Obvious Warning Signs and somebody Should Have Done Something. You'll know who the somebody is because they'll be sued.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

A policeman implying that he supports violence against a public person is problematic because not only does it potentially trigger someone to violence, but it also undermines the perceived neutrality of law enforcement.

 

[phiwum]

If you had a secret Facebook group that privately shared jokes and memes about Trump getting shot and that somehow got made public... maybe.

I don't think it was unreasonable to bring those posts to the attention of the police department where this man works (worked?). It violated their rules regarding social media.

Again, I've decided to stop arguing whether this was a real threat or just blowing off steam, because the whole incident is irrelevant to this thread. There's no clear connection between Trump's "love it or leave it" xenophobia and this cop's post.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Again, I've decided to stop arguing whether this was a real threat or just blowing off steam, because the whole incident is irrelevant to this thread. There's no clear connection between Trump's "love it or leave it" xenophobia and this cop's post.

Irrelevant, unless you want to claim that there is no clear connection between the cop's post and any of Trump hostile rhetoric.

 

[phiwum]

Irrelevant, unless you want to claim that there is no clear connection between the cop's post and any of Trump hostile rhetoric.

This thread is primarily about Trump's recent attacks on the Squad and the "Send her back" chants.

If you are suggesting that the cop was likely emboldened by the general political atmosphere due to Trump's presidency, I can't say for certain but it seems plausible enough. More plausible than that AOC incited the guy in Zig's example.

But this thread has a narrower topic. I'm sure you and I agree that Trump's divisive politics has made political violence more likely and even that his attacks on the Squad has made violence against them and others who appear foreign more likely. I just don't think that this particular incident is evidence for the latter claim and hence it's irrelevant.

 

[johnny karate]

If you heard me in a private conversation insulting and disparaging Trump and then say, in the context of a poor joke, that he oughta be shot, would you alert the Secret Service? Or would you use your own judgment about whether it was a genuine threat or letting off steam?

It’s weird that after arguing so passionately about the importance of context, you strip your comparison of meaningful context.

I have a habit of interpreting the words of others and so do you. We take some comments about violence seriously and others not.

Threats of violence from police officers swing more towards the “serious” end of the spectrum for me. I’m still not clear why they don’t for you.

I really don't want to discuss whether the cop's threat was serious or not any more, since indeed it is irrelevant to this thread. There's no clear evidence that it was influenced by Trump's recent rhetoric. It was a reaction to a fake news article about AOC and not connected to her heritage at all.

Again, you’re ignoring context, which I’m pretty sure you’ve insisted is important.

The things Trump says do not exist in a vacuum. He openly advocates criminal violence and foments conspiracy theories. This cannot be overlooked in examining any individual statement that he makes.

 

[Belz...]

If you are suggesting that the cop was likely emboldened by the general political atmosphere due to Trump's presidency, I can't say for certain but it seems plausible enough. More plausible than that AOC incited the guy in Zig's example.

Any number is greater than zero.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

The context is that a cop was visiting a satire news sites spewing hateful lies against AOC as a joke - and the cop could not tell reality from fake.
Since we know from past examples that this is exactly how people get radicalized online, not taking him seriously would be a reckless mistake.

 

[theprestige]

An expectation of privacy is not relevant here. We're talking about whether the cop was likely to influence many folk with his post, not whether his post was admissible as evidence in a trial or something.



The only folks likely to have read his post (before it became newsworthy) were his online Friends and Friends of Friends. That's a relatively small number, presumably.







I don't think his post incited or was in the least bit likely to incite violence.



I'm sure I've said "so-and-so ought to be shot" in private conversations. Was I inciting violence?

Hell, fuelair used to wish pain and death on people all the time. I don't recall anyone here worried that he might be inciting violence.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

I see that while there are some Republicans leading the charge against Climate Change, I also see that there are damn few. They are an extreme minority in the party.

Now, do you see what I am talking about? Do you see the logic chain now? If not, here's a little more help for ya:

More Republicans Than You Think Support Action on Climate Change

 

[Red Baron Farms]

You use this term fairly often. Its historical usages seem to have gone through several sometimes mutually contradictory changes since its coinage over a century ago.

Would you mind providing the definition you are using when you employ the term?

Thanks in advance.

Neoliberals

 

[phiwum]

It’s weird that after arguing so passionately about the importance of context, you strip your comparison of meaningful context.



Threats of violence from police officers swing more towards the “serious” end of the spectrum for me. I’m still not clear why they don’t for you.

They do, certainly. A police officer making this statement is unfit for his job, arguably. That doesn't mean I expect him to initiate or incite violence from this post.

Again, you’re ignoring context, which I’m pretty sure you’ve insisted is important.

The things Trump says do not exist in a vacuum. He openly advocates criminal violence and foments conspiracy theories. This cannot be overlooked in examining any individual statement that he makes.

The question is whether or not this incident is relevant to this thread, not whether Trump's rhetoric (either generally or specific to his comments on the Squad) is likely to result in violence. You and I agree on that point. Our disagreement is simply over the relevance of this post by a cop who was directly responding to a fake news article about AOC. We can't see any direct connection to Trump's recent attacks on the Squad there, so it's not direct evidence in this thread.

 

[angrysoba]

Hell, fuelair used to wish pain and death on people all the time. I don't recall anyone here worried that he might be inciting violence.

Isn’t that how he got banned? Eventually, and later than he should have been, in my opinion. He was a disgrace.

I think people in power whose “hypothetical” are they, aren’t they threats should be taken very seriously.

 

[Cavemonster]

More Republicans Than You Think Support Action on Climate Change

I take the poll with a grain of salt, even within that article, they're clear that other polls show much lower Republican acknowledgement of global warming as a serious problem and willingness to enact solutions.

And here's the kicker, even if the poll is accurate and more than half of Republicans acknowledge the issue of global warming and support legislative solutions, a far higher percentage approves of the current administration which has struck talk of global warming from government websites, muzzled government scientists. According to Gallup, Trump has a 90% approval among Republicans.

You might say "Well, they approve of the other stuff he's doing even if they disagree with his climate policy".

That means that even if they care about climate in their heart of hearts, they don't care enough about it to say "disapprove" on a survey much less vote for politicians who might do something.

I find the notion that a lot of Republicans care about climate change, just not enough to say or do anything about it kind of uncompelling.

 

[theprestige]

Isn’t that how he got banned? Eventually, and later than he should have been, in my opinion. He was a disgrace.



I think people in power whose “hypothetical” are they, aren’t they threats should be taken very seriously.

He didn't get banned for inciting violence, as far as I know.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I write for a couple conservative spaces at Quora. Here is an example:

What do right wing people consider racist?

I'll be sure to call it bigotry against black and brown immigrants, ethnically black and brown persons who are not recent immigrants, anyone who has a liberal political POV, and Muslims then.