MAGA Hats

[Josh]

You don't think the same men wearing Amish clothing would have been treated the same way?

Nope. The same as if they were wearing Antifa clothing, it would have been ignored too.

I'm trying to picture this. Say, 70 young black men wearing Antifa clothing, mocking a white guy on the Washington Mall, and it doesn't go viral? That's hard for me to imagine.

Large mobs of Antifa people have surrounded and harassed people before, and no, it did not go viral across mainstream news outlets like CNN.

Or 70 young Amish men mocking an Indian guy on the Washington Mall. I doubt that would ever happen, but if it did, I bet it would go viral. Can't prove it, this is obviously speculation.

That probably would go viral, but in the Sandmann incident, there were not 70 men “mocking” an Indian guy. I suggest you go find one of the many excellent videos showing multiple angles of what actually happened.

Social media is cruel. It likes sensationalism. It doesn't mind victims. It takes advantage of the fault lines in American society.

It certainly is, and you seem to have no qualms about participating in it. There really isn’t a lot left up to debate about what happened, yet a lot of people remain committed to the narrative that 15 year old boys must have been evil because they had MAGA hats on.

In a similar vein, some people continue to insist that the incident with Smollets actually can teach us something about how evil people who wear MAGA hats or say the MAGA slogan are, despite the entire thing being a rather elaborate hoax.

[Bootstrap]

Social media is cruel. It likes sensationalism. It doesn't mind victims. It takes advantage of the fault lines in American society.

It certainly is, and you seem to have no qualms about participating in it. There really isn’t a lot left up to debate about what happened, yet a lot of people remain committed to the narrative that 15 year old boys must have been evil because they had MAGA hats on.

I don't think I do the sensationalism thing, and I certainly haven't called these boys evil. Usually, I'm the guy saying let's wait and see how the truth comes out. Please do remember that I did that with this event as well.

But they do look like they are mocking the Indian man in the videos I have seen from various angles. Tomahawk motions. Jumping up and down. Smirking. I think that's rude. I don't think it's rude because they were wearing MAGA hats. Mocking people is rude with or without MAGA hats. It's the kind of thing their school teachers and parents can and should handle, it wouldn't be national news except for the whole outrage cycle.

They're school boys. I hope they have learned from this. They didn't deserve to be raked over the coals by social media. Neither did the Indian man. But that's what social media does.

Maybe we should all learn not to demonize people we do not know over issues and events that do not involve us?

[ohio jones]

If they were blacks mocking a white man who was wearing a MAGA hat, I think this thread would read quite differently. I don't think mocking someone means they deserve the treatment they got, but any time a crowd of 70 boys is surrounding and mocking someone on the Washington Mall, I do think that will get some publicity.

There were black "Hebrew Israelites" mocking the white boys who were wearing MAGA hats. Or have they been forgotten already?

Was Mr. Phillips just innocently walking past and they identified him as someone they wanted to mock and surrounded him, or did he insert himself into their space? Maybe next time they should wear MYOB hats.

[Bootstrap]

If they were blacks mocking a white man who was wearing a MAGA hat, I think this thread would read quite differently. I don't think mocking someone means they deserve the treatment they got, but any time a crowd of 70 boys is surrounding and mocking someone on the Washington Mall, I do think that will get some publicity.

There were black "Hebrew Israelites" mocking the white boys who were wearing MAGA hats. Or have they been forgotten already?

To me, those are the people who seem most guilty in the whole event.

Was Mr. Phillips just innocently walking past and they identified him as someone they wanted to mock and surrounded him, or did he insert himself into their space? Maybe next time they should wear MYOB hats.

I think Mr. Phillips saw a bunch of young men in MAGA hats and assumed that they were like another group of young men in MAGA hats that had been on the Washington Mall last year or in Charlottesville or Portland. He says he put himself between the two groups to try to prevent violence. I think he misread what was going on. I think he and Sandmann courageously put themselves in a situation that neither wanted and they got stuck staring at each other.

I don't think Phillips was threatening them, but I can see how they would be scared. I don't think the 70 boys were threatening Phillips, but I can see how he would be scared.

I could be wrong about any of this, but that's what it looks like to me.

[Robert]

I don't think the 70 boys were threatening Phillips, but I can see how he would be scared.

A scared person does not encroach into the space of said 70 people. A scared person does not beat a drum inches away from one of those boys while surrounded by the rest. I do not see him scared at all. Body language can tell a lot. His body language was not one of being scared, but being a mild aggressor.

You are welcome to have your opinion of the event. I disagree with it. I think your opinion is more a stretch of the events and personalities than mine is. Feel free to have it. I see it as one piece of a much larger picture of events of late. I think Dr Saad has hit the nail on several things. I really enjoyed the 2 hour interview.

[Bootstrap]

You are welcome to have your opinion of the event. I disagree with it.

Sure. This is probably the most important statement to me. I don't like political divisions to trump Christian unity, and I sometimes think political narratives swamp Christian narratives. That's not what Christianity is about.

I see it as one piece of a much larger picture of events of late. I think Dr Saad has hit the nail on several things. I really enjoyed the 2 hour interview.

I only heard the 6-minute version, but I'm familiar with Munchhausen Syndrome. To me, victimhood claims need to be treated the same way whether they come from whites, blacks, Indians, Democrats, Republicans, Trump supporters, Trump opponents ...

That's also important to me.

Most of these claims don't need to involve us. In some cases, they may. As Christians, how do we choose? I don't think the political talking heads help us with this question. I think they tend to keep us riled up about the wrong things.

[Dan Z]

Dr. Saad's interview with Glen Beck was interesting. Thanks for positing it Robert.

Saad's "Collective Munchausen" theory makes good sense to me - many on the left seem to have become so engrossed in the identity of victim-hood and denied rights that they seem to need injury to function and form identity (e.g. me too, black lives matter, gay rights, immigrant rights, animal rights, wage rights, etc.). Thus, instead of a platform of hope, optimism, problem-solving, and forward thinking they often negatively default to a platform of offence, injustice, litigating wrongs, and pushing for punishment and restitution. Most folks on the right and in the center recoil from this.

Saad's use of the "Lexicographic Rule" as a rational for how many justified support for Trump makes sense to me also. The rule says that people often choose a candidate or product over and against another based on the item that is most important to them - in President Trump's case perhaps immigration or abortion or Rustbelt jobs. For many Christian supporters of Trump I know this is true - particularly in the case of abortion. While this approach probably explains the choices of many, that doesn't mean that the approach is morally superior to those who are more comprehensive in their assessment (as are many conservative intellectuals who have come to oppose Trump on moral grounds). One reason is that in addition, the Lexicographic Rule is usually followed up by "choice-supportive bias," which is the tendency to retroactively ascribe positive attributes to an option one has selected. It is a cognitive bias that has lead many (including many Christians) who have used the Lexicographic Rule to choose Trump as the lesser of two evils, to rationalize and defend his immoral behavior in other areas - at great cost to their own integrity (and the integrity of their professed faith).

All that being said, I did find Saad rather pretentious (e.g. calling those he disagrees with "idiots" and "bafoons" and "hypocrites"). I also felt his characterization of intellectuals who dislike Trump because of "Aesthetic Injury" far too narrow - although it fits nicely into the narrative Trump supporters like to use a lot - that "you just don't like him because he is salty and not genteel enough." Baloney! For most, aesthetic sensibilities are a small part of the calculus - "Moral Injury" is the better idea. From his tax-dodged inheritance, to his crooked foundation, to his exploitative business dealings, to his liablus campaign, to serial insulting & mistruths, to his philandering personal lifestyle - the man is a living moral outrage - even by DC standards! Most conservative intellectuals I read are not offended by Trump's aesthetics, but by his baseness, and the harm he is doing to the country and to conservatism. Here's a recent good opinion piece from David Brooks on the matter.

[Robert]

the harm he is doing to the country and to conservatism.

There is, oh so, much to be offended by, but curious about this line. What harm do you see him doing to the country? Not real interested in the "conservatism" part since that is a moving target. What is considered conservative politically today was not so before and may not be again.

I continue to be one of those who are greatly annoyed by his style, but see much benefit to the policies of the administration. So please share some of the things you see him doing to harm the country. If you could, break them down to policy and personality. Thanks.

[Dan Z]

the harm he is doing to the country and to conservatism.

There is, oh so, much to be offended by, but curious about this line. What harm do you see him doing to the country? Not real interested in the "conservatism" part since that is a moving target. What is considered conservative politically today was not so before and may not be again.

I continue to be one of those who are greatly annoyed by his style, but see much benefit to the policies of the administration. So please share some of the things you see him doing to harm the country. If you could, break them down to policy and personality. Thanks.

Good question Robert. I honestly appreciate the ability to have a dispassionate and reasoned discussion about what is going on in society. Thanks for your part in furthering thoughtful conversation.

In that quote I was just sharing some of the general concerns I have read from moderate conservative "intellectuals" who are deeply troubled by the Trump presidency, and its lasting effect on the country and conservatism (I could link some more articles if you'd like). Many of their concerns I do happen to share.

[Robert]

Many of their concerns I do happen to share.

Just curious in the ones you see as harming. Not as concerned about talking heads.