If the conversation ended there, in it's most favorable light Bannon could be assumed to be using "heads on pikes" as a euphemism for "getting tough / serious".

However, immediately after this quote, the other speaker and Bannon discuss historical political hangings and how the death penalty for treason is necessary during a civil war.

And Bannon appears to double down in his own FB post: https://www.facebook.com/SteveKBannon/posts/376710023761776

> Steve Bannon Under Massive Attack > - Steve Bannon’s Twitter Account Suspended After Calling for Execution of Dr Fauci and FBI Director Wray

Regardless of where you come down on the free speech side of calling for a public figure's execution, Bannon seems to concede that he meant what he said.

> And Bannon appears to double down in his own FB post: https://www.facebook.com/SteveKBannon/posts/376710023761776

An alternative interpretation of his Facebook post is that he was quoting this:

https://populist.press/steve-bannons-twitter-account-suspend...

>> "Steve Bannon’s Twitter Account Suspended After Calling for Execution of Dr Fauci and FBI Director Wray"

Considering Bannon claimed: "Steve Bannon Under Massive Attack", and the next line (...After Calling for Execution...) is identical to that used on populist.press, and he included a link to the site (which seems to be broken), this interpretation (that he is quoting populist.press, as opposed to doubling down) doesn't seem too far fetched to me.

If, for the sake of argument (and I mean that very literally), he was actually quoting them (and therefore not doubling down), could Bannon, as you said, "...be assumed to be using "heads on pikes" as a euphemism for "getting tough / serious"?

For more clarity on what actually occurred, here is the link to the full story, and the relevant text and quotes:

https://www.thewrap.com/steve-bannon-suspended-by-twitter-af...

>> In the episode, posted Thursday morning, Bannon was discussing a hypothetical second Trump term. After advocating that among Trump’s first second term orders of business should be firing both Wray and Fauci, Bannon said, “I actually want to go a step farther but 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 either get with the program or you’re gone.”

>> Shortly after, Steve Bannon and his co-host Jack Maxey offered some additional thoughts on the matter that certainly suggested they might actually be serious.

>> “Just yesterday, there was the anniversary of the hanging of two Tories in Philadelphia,” Maxey said. “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.”

>> “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,” Bannon replied.

> An alternative interpretation of his Facebook post is that he was quoting this: https://populist.press/steve-bannons-twitter-account-suspend...

Regardless, he quoted it as a call to action for supporters to come to his defense, so it's reasonable to assume he felt it accurately captured the fact that he called for the execution of two public officials.

I think it's less in doubt what he did and more in doubt what social media should do in response. Twitter took one approach and FB another.

He quoted it because his website (I assume) quotes headlines in full when linking to them.

> Regardless, he quoted it as a call to action for supporters to come to his defense, so it's reasonable to assume he felt it accurately captured the fact that he called for the execution of two public officials.

This is an interesting sentence, particularly the one word: fact.

This word seems to have some sort of a strange quality to it - very mysterious, almost magical.

It's a popular word, people use it all the time. And they seem to really enjoy using it, almost like it has a kind of...reverence to it, for them.

But if you ever talk about how they use it (like, the context they are using it in, and various details related to that), everyone seems to start acting....weird. Like, the passion and interest that was just there 5 seconds ago, kind of vanishes into thin air. There one moment, gone the next. Kind of like cherry blossoms in the spring, or that first crush you have as a teenager (no Mom, it's love, you just don't get it!!!) - so fleeting.

Oh well, it's probably nothing..."just my mind playing tricks on me!" lol

A fact check would diminish the statement as hypothetical. But the damage is already done when rabid gunslingers already ingested the idea that might makes right. These people are dangerous for stable democracy and fair chances for everybody.

Oh yes, there's no doubt about that. Bannon can say things, and who knows what person already near the edge for whatever reason might fly off the handle and do something crazy. It's more than just "a legitimate concern".

But that's obvious. Seeing the risk inherent in people like Bannon doesn't even require effort. Thinking like that (and only that) is kind of the equivalent of "phoning it in" [1].

Reality is very complex. Infinity complex, some people say. Managing it skilfully is a hard problem. There is risk, and problems, everywhere. Attributing it all to cartoon evil characters like Steve Bannon and Donald Trump is pretty low effort thinking. Not even trying to be correct(!) (as opposed to "right").

My point is, why make this problem (just as one example - it is a recurring theme if one pays close attention) even harder by talking about it inaccurately &/or imprecisely? I think most of us wouldn't dare to write software at our day jobs this way, for all the obvious reasons, so then why do we accept it (or sometimes even insist upon it) when it comes to a far more complex problem, which is arguably more important than what we do from 9 to 5?

I am "on the spectrum" (in case it wasn't obvious). I do not understand why people behave like this - in general, but especially programmer types, who possess logical and systems analysis capabilities far beyond what general public can even imagine.

Why do people do this? Human behavior seems completely counter-intuitive to me. Like, backwards from what it should be. Can you explain it to me in some way that might make sense, to someone like me?

[1] https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=phoned%20it%...

He says things he's going to do then does exactly that, without any basis in truth, facts or consequences. That's the problem. People don't believe he would be so inclined. However, there's no sign of him not meaning what he says, even when it's to troll for attention. The risk there is him going through with what he says, and not standing up for principles but rather tearing them down. Why? His agenda is simply to satisfy his own infinite craving for attention and likes. Though where are the limits to the means for attaining such a goal? They seem to diminish in time, which is pathological.

Such populists play on the fears and anger of the people. There is real inequality in USA, but the masses bet on the wrong horses again and again. Why? Because the privatization of media assures that billionaires set the agenda every day.

It seems high time for a third party, a middle ground, to be made. Because Democrats are too wide, too divided, and thus end up being too extreme. Ie. their stance of unlimited abortion until birth, is extremist in any country. But with the failed two party "system", they end up alienating most of the republican voter base.

This is all frustration playing out due to failed two party political system and the billionaires that ensures the status quo on both sides. The problem is when people become too frustrated, but it is a hard problem who to turn to for aid.

Does this have anything to do with what I wrote?

This is what I do not understand about the culture on HN, and mainstream "right thinking" culture in general: if your ideas really are so proper and correct, then why is there so much dishonesty in your words? If your case is sound, why not just stick to facts? Why can you not reply to direct questions, but instead act as if you did not read them?

Why do people do this? I mean, the text is right here on the page. Do neuro-typical people not feel embarrassment or shame, or is that kind of offset by the feeling of security that comes with being a member of the majority, a kind of "normie privilege" I guess you could say? The lack of self-awareness seems stark to me, but maybe I'm the only one that sees it.