Woman punches man in Broadway bar over MAGA-style birthday hat

Unless I'm their treating specialist, I have no business getting involved in their mental health scenarios. Again, why the bizarre insistence on meddling in the troubles of random strangers?

As for the growing number of people with these kinds of mental health problems .. that was always going to happen, in a society which enables same.

 

1) I don't expect anything other than to remain un-punched. I don't expect my feelings to be catered to. I'm not 8 years old.

2) Yes, we must all worry about those who are so ill that they punch others over fashion choices. I do consider underdeveloped and un-civil adults a problem, because they make us all unsafe. Ergo your claim that I don't consider them is without merit.

3) I'm sure their families and treating mental health professionals care about them. What are you talking about?

4) They will get better if they work on their mental health issues.

 

You may be right. I hope not.

 

Once again .. we had it right in the late 90's. Not because no one ever wore the wrong hat or hurt the feelings of random strangers, but because we were civil and mature enough to not indulge inappropriate responses. It was our civility and maturity which made us more tolerant (of all manner of things we don't tolerate today).

The goal is not to increase our hyper sensitivity by enabling it - a goal which can only in end in something like North Korea - the goal is to decrease it to the level of the late 20thC.

 

The late 90's were very very good. I think the only thing missing in terms of legal and institutional discrimination at that point was same sex marriage, but that was sorted soon after. Either way, we were more tolerant than we are today.

 

You're argument is that one shouldn't draw attention to themselves or it could provoke a reaction therefore having a violent result and you SYMPATHIZE with the person who committed the assault because it hurt their feelings, bothered them, triggered etc..

Given your reasoning, let's get really broad with the topic ignoring the MAGA hat all together for a moment...

Where do we draw the line ? Who's to say what captures people's attention and provokes hostile feelings? A Christian wearing a cross necklace could get attacked by an extremist, still feel sympathy? A woman wearing a fitted dress minding her own business gets raped because she captured the eye of a rapist, justifiable still? The list is endless! Sports team hats, political hats, religious garments, ugly clothing, beautiful flashy clothing..all can provoke attention and hostility . ...hell the looks of a person can promote emotion and attention..where do you draw the line?

Should there just be a national dresscode where we all wear the same thing? You never know what is going to draw attention from someone so justifying your argument has nothing to do with scruples, it is victim shaming, which is hardly a moral high ground.

An exception to that would be if someone was clearly antagonizing someone by getting in their face and CLEARLY trying to start a fight, if that person gets punched, they sort of instigated it. Then I blame both people.

However, back to the OP a MAGA hat or wearing ANY political attire, and just going about their business is not "asking for it" in anyway shape or form.

 

By punishing the aggressors, quickly and firmly - just like any other violent criminal. Why on earth would we do it any differently?

 

Seriously?

The man did NOTHING. The woman violently attacked.

How are you able to convince yourself that the man had any responsibility in this scenario?

 

1) maybe it was, maybe it wasn't (it wasn't), but what possible difference does that make?

2) again, what possible difference does it make? the hat could have been in support of satan/hitler/manson/Hillary all at once, and it still wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference. it's a freaking hat, not a nuclear warhead.

3) sure you should. and an important part of that is not freaking out when someone makes fashion choices you don't approve of. other than that, don't poop on the pavement, shag in the park, vomit on people's shoes, spit, shout profanities at small children, cough/sneeze in crowded places, or cut in line.

 

Exactly. Since the potential reactions of strangers are unknowable, the only possible way would could ever 'protect' everyone from the threat of exposure to things they don't like, is to go full totalitarian ... something like a hybrid of China at height of communism, and North Korea. Everyone dressed in identical grey Mao suits, no one making eye contact, everyone with exactly the same haircut.

 

You don't understand the law, it seems. The scenario you described is already covered by stalker and harassment type laws. Completely different thing.

And of course there are ways to hurt people which aren't physical, but they're almost always predicated upon an existing relationship. It's VERY difficult to hurt a random stranger, since non-physical hurt results from damage to a relationship, not the actual 'exchange' itself.

 

People have ALWAYS worn political slogans. There is absolutely nothing new about any of that.

What has changed is the response of poorly regulated and immature people, to those political symbols.

 

.

 

Sure. Pooping on sidewalk, shagging in parks, shouting obscenities into the faces of small children, failing to help elderly or disabled people cross roads. Plenty of things we shouldn't do. Worrying about the colour of our hats isn't one of them.

 

When it comes to strangers on the street, the maximum 'kindness and understanding' we can enact is as per my post above. Don't poop on sidewalk etc. Once you try to control beyond those fundamental civilities, you are engaging in the opposite of kindness and understanding. You are then encroaching on the freedoms of those who might have trouble talking quietly, or who are morbidly obese, or in wheelchairs, or suffering tourettes, or are enormous stinky hairy men who like to cross-dress, or autistic children running amok in Target, or love wearing Nazi t-shirts or hats with hammer/sickle logo, or have dreadlocks, or little Hitler moustaches, or are the wrong race, or the wrong gender, etc etc etc.

Everything beyond violence is going to be offensive to someone, but violence (and poop on sidewalks) is offensive to everyone.

 

No, there isn't. There is NO difference whatsoever.

 

Yes, it's deplorable that they would be violently triggered by merely seeing a hat representing their political opponents. We should all be very concerned about that.

 

You think there is any freedom involved, when you're talking about those who would dismantle democracy?

 

And enemies of DEMOCRACY.

 

That has me thinking ..

Could there be a link in there somewhere? Is Trump just too 'freeing' for the authoritarian mindset? Does the thought of losing control of the brown people send them over the edge?

 

1) Gee, thanks!

2) How on earth could the wearer of a hat possibly know what level of angst others will experience in response? They can no more know that, than you can know how much 'pleasure' he/she obtains via this unknown potential. It's an absurdist scenario. Really, astonishingly absurd.

3) You would want to punch the hat wearer, if they smiled in response to wildly inappropriate anger triggered by the hat? Seriously? You would not be bothered by the wildly inappropriate anger, just the smile? That's beyond awful, sorry.

 

So, how do we change society?

In a country of freedom at all costs, consequence free, and selfishness, I don't see a solution.

 

Nope, try again . I would be equally worried about that womans reaction and doing what I could to stay away from her as well.

Same for people that display any extreme emotions in public . Anger, laughing, etc. I wouldn't be attacking them. But I would be wary and watching them.

What could possible be that good or bad to cause them to make scenes in a public space?

And you can hate me for my opinions if you want. I am just being careful. I don't take risks I don't have to.

 

So then, black and white for you, no gray area?

Then I propose we enact laws that committing ANY crime will be punished by death. Would you agree? Yes or no?

If you say no, then you admit there is a gray area, and at that point the argument switches to where we draw the line and how we agree to get there.

I await you answer. No evasion, no deception. Just say what you mean and believe in, okay?

 

By raising your kids without socially disabling biases that might turn them into unhinged intolerant bigots. Send them out into society with a liberal tolerance of all things but violence and sidewalk poop.

THAT is what unselfishness looks like.