"A bullet to the head": Republican Marjorie Taylor Greene approved of posts calling for Pelosi, Obama, Hillary Clinton and FBI agents to be executed

Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2021/01/27/a-bullet-to-the-head-republican-marjorie-taylor-greene-approved-of-posts-calling-for-pelosi-obama-hillary-clinton-and-fbi-agents-to-be-executed.html


And why aren’t we putting these people on trial? They’re complicit, with evidence on social media.

Without consequences, what happened on January 6 will be known as a “rehearsal.”


I would get fired instantly if I even hinted that I wanted harm to come to a co-worker. I can’t comprehend how these people retain their jobs.

I guess it’s because almost %50 of our patriotic citizens somehow think this is okay. Except when it’s the “moral majority” who are threatened; then it’s “antifa” made me do it.

EDIT: spelling


These people that have the Karen privilege never had consequences from their actions. So without any consequences to them they will continue to do the same thing.
Unfortunately no reaction for these things normally happens. So people will throw away Columbus statues and forget to protest with living and dangerous politician like this.


I remember in the Bush years when people got Secret Service visits or jail time for t-shirts, or saying “Fuck Bush” at rallies. But this is okay?


Very simple: IOKIYAR.

More expansively: They have an absolute moral certitude that they are correct. Conservatives don’t deal with uncertainty in the same way, or process it as well, as liberals. That affects (and, I guess, effects) decision-making in a lot of ways. One of the main ways is that liberals process “gray area” quandries much differently. Liberals are comfortable with gray areas in moral judgment, and can see “both sides” of an argument much better–empathy, as it were. So, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and the terrorists who besieged the Capitol, have a stunning moral clarity about the problem, and the solution. There’s not a lot of middle ground for them, and their fellow travellers think largely along the same lines–they might not agree with insurrections and executions, but they sympathize to a larger degree that, for example, liberals would with looting and rioting by BLM and Antifa. This last, is why, for example, rightwingers immediately bring up the summer riots and demonstrations by BLM–because they think we sympathize with property destruction by people with similar political leanings in the same way they sympathize with calls for executions. [Further reading here, here, here, here, etc.]. Incidentally, it also has an effect on how our bodies actually feel when making moral decisions.


Blames you for his/her violent outbursts.


She’s pulling a scam to avoid doing any actual work in Congress. Coming off as so extreme and unhinged that nobody will seat her on committee. This way she gets benefits and pay for doing nothing.

Anyone stupid enough to vote for her in the first place probably won’t notice how little she is doing for their interests in Congress.


perfect strategy when your goal is to stop government from doing its job


Reminder that in 2017 Senate Republicans invoked a conduct rule to stop Elizabeth Warren’s recital of a 1986 letter from Coretta Scott King during the nomination of Jeff Sessions for attorney general.
Warren was interrupted and warned of Rule 19, which forbids members from imputing to a colleague “any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator.”
Mitch McConnell called her out of order and she was silenced on the Senate floor.


Its more like being the lazy person on a team. Coasting by on the efforts of others and avoiding doing actual work. There are plenty of Representatives who want to get stuff done, even if only for their personal nefarious purposes.

She’s just trying to get paid without having to do her job. Ron and Rand Paul pulled the scam. Every “Libertarian” (with a capital L) elected to public office does this.

Of course the thing about keeping the government from doing its job is you then blame the government for not functioning and use it as a pretext for corrupt privatization or for re-election as an “outsider”.


The TGOP big top hot mess circus, the WTF of political parties.


So if I’m reading you correctly, we should respond to this with pictures of her and other conservatives in crosshairs, on “dead or alive” wanted posters, and so on. Because they’ll understand that we don’t “really” mean it as a threat, it’s saying we disagree strongly.

ETA: Not being sarcastic, I’m trying to understand the concept.


I don’t believe that would be appropriate, and I hope my comment didn’t come across as advocating for that. I was responding to a comment [thought I replied incorrectly] by @longtimelurker, writing

“I guess it’s because almost %50 of our patriotic citizens somehow think this is okay. Except when it’s the “moral majority” who are threatened; then it’s “antifa” made me do it.”

My point was simply to say that “yeah, that’s how they see things, our brains work differently, it’s structural.”


Democratic colleagues. The adjective is “Democratic.” The noun is “Democrat.”


No, I do understand that our brains are different, and we respond to these things differently. But at some point, if we’re going to… I dunno… “communicate effectively with the aliens”… shouldn’t we at least try to communicate on terms they will understand?

My wife and I both come from families that skew heavily conservative (mine more than hers, and I actually don’t talk to any of them anymore, but that’s only semi-related to politics), and we’re both liberal progressives. One thing we’ve both noticed about our families is, reason and argument are not really effective communication strategies, but losing your shit is. So, if I had ever wanted to do X, I could have a million good reasons for it, and the argument would endure forever, but if I just screamed, “Because I’m fucking do it, that’s why!”, it was like, “Oh, I didn’t know you felt so strongly about it. Okay.” In other words, an assertion of dominance works, but an attempt to negotiate doesn’t.

That could just be that our families are also toxic (they are), but I do wonder how much dominance, aggression, and threat-displays are basically effective strategies when communicating with conservatives. They certainly bow to the meanest bully on the playground.


I don’t think that would work. This is not a group that genuinely believe both sides are equal. Their own actions are justified and appropriate, while the same actions from the other side are inexcusable and evidence of moral depravity.


Because BOTH SIDES. Because white privilege.


Stop this. Take these people seriously, or they are going to take the whole god damn country down with them. Stop giving them a pass by saying “it’s a scam” or “they’re stupid” because even if it is, THESE ACTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES. It gets people killed.

No. They should be held accountable, via the means we have available that our entire society has agreed to use, which is the legal system.

Doesn’t that assume that they can’t change or that they have no choice? I don’t believe that to be the case. They’ve made a choice to embrace extremism. Even if they think differently, plenty of people who think differently did not make the choice to back extremism.


Prime example: The USPS.


OK, fine, do nuance, you liberal. :wink:

Yes, not all of them embrace extremism. But for the ones who have, their brains are set up for “black and white” solutions only. They likely cannot be reasoned with. More moderate ones, sure.

Yeah, I can see how that would fit.