I happen to agree with Viva on this because while I understand how it's used on a list of objects, it's way different for people.
Basically, it's taken as a way of saying to "eliminate" something. Through context, you obviously aren't asking for someone to commit murder, but that's through context.
If I have a grocery list, and my wife realizes we don't need bananas, and she tells me to "86 the bananas", I understand that the bananas should be removed, not killed, because you can not kill a banana.
If my boss at work tells me to "86 Steve from the project", again, I can use context clues to understand that Steve should be removed from the roster, not shot in the head in the parking lot.
The problem is that we are applying that phrase to the most lethal job in American history, on a man who has survived three assassination attempts so far, from a political movement that has supported mass terrorism, insurrection, fire-bombing, wide-range petty terrorism, endorsed his assassination, endorsed the assassination of cops, endorsed the assassination of people saying the n-word, endorsed the assassination of Afrikaners, endorsed the assassination January 6 protestors, and endorsed the assassination of a health care CEO.
The context clues here tell me that this is a call for murder. A call to "eliminate" Trump, by a movement that has been openly violent, and supported open violence, is not something I'm going to just excuse. At least, if I also assume that Comey isn't trying to get attention for his book, which we know he is doing that.
Not to mention they've already attempted to peacefully "remove" Trump by legal means and fallen flat. There's no need to call for something to be done that has already been tried and has safeguards in place against such double jeopardy. The only legal recourse left at this point is to challenge his individual orders, there's no causes left to try and have him completely removed as president.
Even by the most charitable interpretation he's calling out on the blind hope that someone finds (or "finds", Steele dossier style) another convincing pretense for impeachment, then they can start another legal attempt to "remove" him from office.
That's a very elaborate plan to describe in a single cryptic number meme. Seems far more straightforward to assume the people who have called for and carried out multiple political assassination attempts are doing so again, being cryptic enough to maintain (barely) plausible deniability.
Precisely. Even if we accept that impeachment is a purely political process and he will be impeached and removed for purely illegitimate reasons, you wouldn't call it "86 47". You'd just yell "impeach Trump" like everyone else is.
I can't speak for anyone else, but the main and almost sole context I ever heard '86' used in is kicking someone out. A bartender, bouncer, or waiter will 86 an unruly customer, for example. And that's its general cultural usage as well, at least in my personal experience.
I agree here they were definitely trying to be clever, but it's nowhere near as cut and dry as Viva is making it out.
It’s extremely common parlance in the restaurant and hospitality industries. It basically just means “take that off the menu because we’re all out of it”.
I happen to agree with Viva on this because while I understand how it's used on a list of objects, it's way different for people.
Basically, it's taken as a way of saying to "eliminate" something. Through context, you obviously aren't asking for someone to commit murder, but that's through context.
If I have a grocery list, and my wife realizes we don't need bananas, and she tells me to "86 the bananas", I understand that the bananas should be removed, not killed, because you can not kill a banana.
If my boss at work tells me to "86 Steve from the project", again, I can use context clues to understand that Steve should be removed from the roster, not shot in the head in the parking lot.
The problem is that we are applying that phrase to the most lethal job in American history, on a man who has survived three assassination attempts so far, from a political movement that has supported mass terrorism, insurrection, fire-bombing, wide-range petty terrorism, endorsed his assassination, endorsed the assassination of cops, endorsed the assassination of people saying the n-word, endorsed the assassination of Afrikaners, endorsed the assassination January 6 protestors, and endorsed the assassination of a health care CEO.
The context clues here tell me that this is a call for murder. A call to "eliminate" Trump, by a movement that has been openly violent, and supported open violence, is not something I'm going to just excuse. At least, if I also assume that Comey isn't trying to get attention for his book, which we know he is doing that.
Not to mention they've already attempted to peacefully "remove" Trump by legal means and fallen flat. There's no need to call for something to be done that has already been tried and has safeguards in place against such double jeopardy. The only legal recourse left at this point is to challenge his individual orders, there's no causes left to try and have him completely removed as president.
Even by the most charitable interpretation he's calling out on the blind hope that someone finds (or "finds", Steele dossier style) another convincing pretense for impeachment, then they can start another legal attempt to "remove" him from office.
That's a very elaborate plan to describe in a single cryptic number meme. Seems far more straightforward to assume the people who have called for and carried out multiple political assassination attempts are doing so again, being cryptic enough to maintain (barely) plausible deniability.
Precisely. Even if we accept that impeachment is a purely political process and he will be impeached and removed for purely illegitimate reasons, you wouldn't call it "86 47". You'd just yell "impeach Trump" like everyone else is.
I can't speak for anyone else, but the main and almost sole context I ever heard '86' used in is kicking someone out. A bartender, bouncer, or waiter will 86 an unruly customer, for example. And that's its general cultural usage as well, at least in my personal experience.
I agree here they were definitely trying to be clever, but it's nowhere near as cut and dry as Viva is making it out.
It’s extremely common parlance in the restaurant and hospitality industries. It basically just means “take that off the menu because we’re all out of it”.