He called for using military force against civil rights activists. Is this the kind of great intellectual leap forward the grandparent post was talking about? Because if you want to talk about cancelling things, using the military to crush and jail activism is cancelling things pretty hard.

He called on the use of force against people doing violence, not the peaceful protestors.

"One thing above all else will restore order to our streets: an overwhelming show of force to disperse, detain and ultimately deter lawbreakers."

Incited by "violence" (mostly property damage, some clashes with cops trying to box in and disperse non-violent protestors) - but calling for dispersal of everyone. Using the military to crush a civil rights movement

Someone peacefully protesting is not a "lawbreaker". The quote you provided only refers to criminals. In fact "the right of the people peaceably to assemble" is explicitly allowed in the Constitution.

Please show me where he said peaceful protestors should have force used upon them.

When he said send in the military to do "an overwhelming show of force".

The military isn't going to walk through the crowd picking out the few people smashing windows or throwing bottles. That would not be an OVERWHELMING SHOW OF FORCE. They would march on the crowds, and almost inevitably use lethal force on them. Even if the target is only the ones throwing bottles or smashing windows, the military cannot and would not make that distinction in the moment.

We don't have to imagine what it would be like, it's happened before https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings

So whn you said "He called for using military force against civil rights activists" that was not actually accurate? Cotton only said against lawbreakers right?

If I spread my coin jar out on the table, to sort all the quarters out, and you walk in and say “let’s clean all these pennies up! I’ll tip the table over and they’ll all fall into this garbage bag!” You technically said that you wanted to remove the pennies from the table, but your suggested course of action would have also removed all the quarters and dimes.

Do you understand the difference between how you say something, and the ideas you are conveying? The thing he suggested was using military force on the people protesting.

Even setting aside that. Even if he did mean to magically only use military force on protestors who broke the law. There were a lot of protests happening peacefully, but after an 8pm curfew - those would have been lawbreakers... and also peaceful protestors. Should they have military force used on them because they broke a curfew? Tom Cotton appears to think so

People who don't recognize your username assumed you were making your request in good faith.