By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Former FBI Director James Comey’s Instagram post featuring “86 47” sparked accusations of inciting violence against President Trump, despite Comey’s apology citing unawareness of the number’s violent connotations. Simultaneously, critics highlighted the hypocrisy of conservatives who previously used “86 46” to advocate for President Biden’s impeachment. This apparent double standard fueled widespread outrage on social media, with users pointing out the disparate interpretations of the numerical slogans. The Secret Service confirmed their investigation into the matter, emphasizing their commitment to protecting high-profile individuals from credible threats. The incident underscored the highly charged political climate and the potential for misinterpretations in online communication.
Read the original article here
Conservatives using “86 46” to protest President Biden after a backlash against a similar post by former FBI Director Comey using “86 47” highlights a glaring hypocrisy. The use of “86” in this context, while seemingly innocuous as a slang term for removal, has been interpreted by many as a veiled threat of violence against the president. This is particularly troubling given the context of the already existing intense political climate and recent escalation of divisive rhetoric.
The immediate reaction to the conservative use of “86 46” has been swift and critical, with many pointing out the stark contrast between this action and the outcry that followed Comey’s post. The double standard is clear; the same actions, when used against a political opponent, are deemed unacceptable, yet when directed at a preferred target, are met with either silence or outright approval. This inconsistency reveals a deeply ingrained partisan bias that undermines any claim to principled objection.
It’s undeniable that the use of such phrases, even if unintentional, contributes to a climate of fear and intimidation. It normalizes the casual dehumanization of political opponents, thereby eroding the foundation of respectful political discourse. It’s a dangerous game that risks further polarizing an already divided nation and creating fertile ground for more extreme actions.
The argument that “86” simply means to remove or dismiss someone is a weak defense. While this interpretation holds true, in the current charged political atmosphere, the context undeniably suggests something more sinister. The deliberate choice of using numerical codes representing presidents, especially in a context where similar phrases have been used to incite violence, can not be dismissed as a mere coincidence.
The hypocrisy extends beyond the immediate incident. Many critics point to a long history of similar instances where conservatives have engaged in similar behavior, yet faced little to no consequences. This fosters a sense of impunity, emboldening further actions that push the boundaries of acceptable political engagement. The selective outrage demonstrated by some only fuels the flames of division, further highlighting the double standards at play.
The concern isn’t solely about the specific wording but also about the broader pattern of behavior it represents. It’s about a willingness to engage in inflammatory rhetoric, regardless of the consequences. This suggests a deeper problem within conservative circles: a lack of self-reflection and a disregard for the potential impact of their actions on the national discourse.
The counterarguments often involve whataboutism, deflecting criticism by pointing to similar actions by the opposing side. However, this tactic fails to address the core issue of the hypocrisy. The focus should not be on finding an equal level of wrongdoing on both sides, but on condemning all instances of potentially harmful rhetoric, regardless of political affiliation.
To simply say that conservatives are “hypocrites” is a simplistic analysis. The underlying issue is a deeper, more systemic problem—a breakdown in the principles of civil discourse and political civility. This situation requires a concerted effort from all sides to re-establish a framework of respectful engagement, regardless of political beliefs.
Beyond the immediate calls to condemn the use of “86 46,” this incident should serve as a wake-up call for everyone involved in political discourse. We need to hold ourselves and others accountable for our words and actions, recognizing the potentially grave consequences of engaging in rhetoric that can incite violence or hatred. The future of American democracy depends on a collective commitment to fostering a more civil and respectful political environment. Ultimately, ignoring or downplaying such instances of blatant hypocrisy only serves to normalize it, leaving us further down a dangerous path.