By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following a social media post by James Comey depicting seashells arranged as “8647,” pro-Trump figures reacted with outrage, claiming it was a threat on President Trump’s life. However, many of these same individuals previously used “86” in reference to their political opponents, highlighting a perceived double standard. The term “86,” meaning to remove or discard, has been used in various contexts, including on anti-Biden merchandise featuring “8646.” Comey later removed the post, stating he didn’t intend any violence.
Read the original article here
Matt Gaetz’s recent defense of his use of the term “86” as distinct from James Comey’s alleged “threat” has ignited a firestorm of accusations of hypocrisy within the MAGA movement. Gaetz insists his use of the slang term, referencing removing individuals from leadership positions, is fundamentally different from any implied threat. He argues that the context is entirely different; that his tweets were celebrating a political shift within the Republican party while Comey’s actions, he claims, were intended to be a more ominous warning.
The controversy stems from a clear contrast in how the MAGA crowd interprets seemingly identical actions depending on who performs them. Gaetz’s boastful tweet about “86ing” prominent Republicans was met with cheers from his supporters, presented as a necessary purge to revive the party. Conversely, the same terminology, when used by Comey—or so the argument goes—is deemed a serious threat warranting condemnation and even legal repercussions. This inconsistency has left many questioning the actual principles governing their outrage, rather than the action itself.
Many critics point to this double standard as a blatant example of hypocrisy, arguing that the justification hinges solely on political affiliation rather than the meaning or intent behind the words used. The idea that the same phrase, “86,” can signify a celebratory purge in one instance and a menacing threat in another highlights the selective outrage that characterizes much of the political discourse today. There appears to be a convenient disregard for consistency in application.
This incident exemplifies the broader challenge of interpreting intent and context in the highly polarized environment of modern politics. Whether one interprets “86” as a simple dismissal or a subtle threat often depends on pre-existing biases and allegiances. This subjectivity leaves room for significant manipulation and selective outrage, as seen in the sharply divided responses to Gaetz’s tweet and Comey’s imagery. It suggests a focus not on inherent meaning but on the actor’s alignment with favored political ideologies.
The use of “86” by both Gaetz and Comey serves to highlight the malleability of language within the current political climate. The lack of a consistent standard for interpreting intent opens the door for selectively applying outrage and dismissing critiques based on which side the actor aligns with. The debate highlights the difficulty of establishing common ground and engaging in objective discourse when interpretations are so readily skewed by political allegiances.
The accusation of hypocrisy is further fueled by the disparity in the intensity of the reactions. The comparatively muted response to Gaetz’s openly celebratory use of “86” is contrasted with the fervent outrage directed toward Comey. This uneven reaction underscores the argument of selectively applied moral standards. The criticism is that the outrage isn’t about the potential threat inherent in “86” but rather about the perceived transgressions of political opponents.
While Gaetz contends that the context is crucial to understanding the meaning of “86,” his critics maintain that the inherent ambiguity of the term allows for multiple interpretations, rendering his distinction unconvincing. The argument centers on whether the intended meaning should override the potential for misinterpretation or the potential for the phrase to be perceived as a threat, regardless of intent.
The central point of contention seems to revolve around the perceived power dynamics. When a figure like Gaetz uses the term to announce the removal of political opponents, it’s framed as a strategic maneuver. However, when the same language is used by a perceived opponent, it’s readily interpreted as an act of intimidation or a thinly veiled threat. This discrepancy further reinforces the perception of partisan bias in interpreting the actions and language of those associated with opposing political sides.
This entire saga underscores a larger issue—the growing chasm of trust and the difficulty in having productive political conversations. The differing interpretations of “86” exemplify the selective application of rules and moral standards, driven by partisan loyalties rather than objective evaluation. This dynamic creates an environment where open and honest dialogue is virtually impossible. The seemingly simple term “86” becomes a microcosm of a much larger issue of selective outrage and inconsistent application of standards within the political landscape. Until the underlying biases are addressed, this kind of polarized response to similar actions will likely continue.