5 ms·

> A MAGA hat can serve as a useful heuristic for "likely to cause trouble". Wow. And here I am, thinking that we no longer discriminate people based on their

> A MAGA hat can serve as a useful heuristic for "likely to cause trouble". Wow. And here I am, thinking that we no longer discriminate people based on their political leanings and everyone has the right to freedom of political opinion. Move over racial profiling. Here comes political profiling.

umvi 7y ago
People rationalize that political profiling is acceptable using the paradox of tolerance[1]. Basically, if you can convince yourself that every member of a political party is intolerant due to their worldview, you no longer have to be tolerant of anyone in that party and you are allowed and even encouraged to politically profile them, name and shame them, or any other tactic you think will make them less intolerant (such as getting them kicked off of github projects, kicked out of conventions and events, etc.). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
- jonbronson 7y ago
  You misunderstand the paradox. It's not merely 'rationalizing' to recognize that the paradox demands that we do not tolerate intolerance. The system simply does not work if we tolerate the intolerant.
  - tpmoney 7y ago
    I find the only way for the system to work is to tolerate the intolerant. That is to say, it's vastly easier and more consistent to allow everyone their right to speak their mind than it is to justify why one person's speech isn't another person's threat. We're at the point where people are claiming MAGA hats are actionably threatening. So should that not also apply to anyone who says "eat the rich"? How about actual real communists that want to dismantle the government? Anarchists? How about anyone who promotes anti-establishment music (e.g. f the police) Which political positions, which political speech is dangerous and which is allowed? How do we know? Or put more succinctly, when all the other intolerant are gone, who will speak up when they come for you?
CiPHPerCoder 7y ago
[redacted] Please flagkill.
- zozbot234 7y ago
  There are plenty of LGBTetc. Republicans who would happily wear such a hat though, if perhaps not at a "LGBTQIA+ community" event. Peter Teal is a particularly high-profile example.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- big_chungus 7y ago
  > Unlike race and sexual orientation, your political beliefs are mutable and the result of your choices. We protect religion because it is a fundamental expression of deeply-held values and it is everyone's right to do so. Political persuasion is also a result of those values, and not mutable. You can't "just change" what you believe. > Even moreso, the decision to wear a MAGA hat is a choice. There are many LGBTQIA+ republicans in America, including many of my friends. They don't wear MAGA hats at such events because they're not looking for conflict. "There are many clean-cut black kids in America, including many of my friends. They don't wear hoodies and saggy pants in public because they're not looking for conflict." If you replace a your chosen group with "blacks" and it sounds like something David Duke would write, you may wish to re-consider your phraseology. Edit: the above poster deleted his comment, but I feel the need to replicate the text so mine makes sense. Here is what it said: "I often help my friends organize and operate LGBTQIA+ events at hacker cons. Someone showing up with a MAGA hat is rare, and when it does happen, they're either there to make a statement about free speech (which is fine) or to harass one or more of our attendees (which is unacceptable). So when it does happen, we have to be aware of it, but we don't take any specific actions unless they misbehave. In the wake of white supremacist violence (see second link from my previous comment), not taking note whenever someone with a MAGA hat shows up would be negligent and put targeted people at risk. If you put "allow white supremacist violence against minority groups" on one end of the scale and "avoid any perception of 'political profiling' behavior" on the other, protecting the LGBTQIA+ community that these events serve is going to win every time. Unlike race and sexual orientation, your political beliefs are mutable and the result of your choices. Even moreso, the decision to wear a MAGA hat is a choice. There are many LGBTQIA+ republicans in America, including many of my friends. They don't wear MAGA hats at such events because they're not looking for conflict."
disintegore 7y ago
I think it's perfectly legitimate to consider the MAGA hat a hate symbol. Specifically because of what it represents to American minorities; an implicit threat. At one time the hat represented something legitimate but Trump's first term is coming to its end. The campaign has been over for a long time now. The MAGA hat is yet another symbol that the alt right appropriated for itself. It doesn't just represent Trump supporters and Republicans at large anymore.
- zozbot234 7y ago
  > Trump's first term is coming to its end. The campaign has been over for a long time now. Long enough for it to start all over again in short order, though. And Trump may well choose to keep the "MAGA" slogan for his re-election campaign - last we heard, it was a choice between that or "Keep America Great".
- 12elephant 7y ago
  How is the MAGA hat a threat? I'm a minority. Not only do I not think it's threatening, I'm even considering buying a few. Not for political reasons, but just because its become so iconic I think they'll be worth a lot more as vintage items in 10-20 years.
  - uniacid 7y ago
    They would be great in case you ever run out of firewood.
- sydd 7y ago
  > Specifically because of what it represents to American minorities; an implicit threat. Why does it represent a threat? Did Trump made any laws that negatively discriminiates minorities? Are there death camps for them? Are they not allowed to hold certain positions?
- ctdonath 7y ago
  Near as I can tell, this "MAGA hat is a hate symbol" notion comes from people who want a group to embody evils X, Y, & Z so that group can be opposed. Lacking such a group, progressives have designated Trump supporters as such via wanton misinterpretation of legitimate, normal, and earnest positions. The term "alt right" didn't exist to any meaningful degree until Trump was elected, to the dismay of Leftists convinced Hillary would win; her supporters suddenly started using this term to slander the opposition. There are, for most practical purposes, no "white supremacists", "alt right", "Nazis", etc. (have you actually met any?). The Trump Right have been wrongfully slandered as "racist", "xenophobic", "sexist", etc; they just haven't figured out how to counter such libelous & intolerant abuse.

umvi 7y ago

People rationalize that political profiling is acceptable using the paradox of tolerance[1]. Basically, if you can convince yourself that every member of a political party is intolerant due to their worldview, you no longer have to be tolerant of anyone in that party and you are allowed and even encouraged to politically profile them, name and shame them, or any other tactic you think will make them less intolerant (such as getting them kicked off of github projects, kicked out of conventions and events, etc.). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

jonbronson 7y ago
You misunderstand the paradox. It's not merely 'rationalizing' to recognize that the paradox demands that we do not tolerate intolerance. The system simply does not work if we tolerate the intolerant.
- tpmoney 7y ago
  I find the only way for the system to work is to tolerate the intolerant. That is to say, it's vastly easier and more consistent to allow everyone their right to speak their mind than it is to justify why one person's speech isn't another person's threat. We're at the point where people are claiming MAGA hats are actionably threatening. So should that not also apply to anyone who says "eat the rich"? How about actual real communists that want to dismantle the government? Anarchists? How about anyone who promotes anti-establishment music (e.g. f the police) Which political positions, which political speech is dangerous and which is allowed? How do we know? Or put more succinctly, when all the other intolerant are gone, who will speak up when they come for you?

CiPHPerCoder 7y ago

[redacted] Please flagkill.

zozbot234 7y ago
There are plenty of LGBTetc. Republicans who would happily wear such a hat though, if perhaps not at a "LGBTQIA+ community" event. Peter Teal is a particularly high-profile example.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
big_chungus 7y ago
> Unlike race and sexual orientation, your political beliefs are mutable and the result of your choices. We protect religion because it is a fundamental expression of deeply-held values and it is everyone's right to do so. Political persuasion is also a result of those values, and not mutable. You can't "just change" what you believe. > Even moreso, the decision to wear a MAGA hat is a choice. There are many LGBTQIA+ republicans in America, including many of my friends. They don't wear MAGA hats at such events because they're not looking for conflict. "There are many clean-cut black kids in America, including many of my friends. They don't wear hoodies and saggy pants in public because they're not looking for conflict." If you replace a your chosen group with "blacks" and it sounds like something David Duke would write, you may wish to re-consider your phraseology. Edit: the above poster deleted his comment, but I feel the need to replicate the text so mine makes sense. Here is what it said: "I often help my friends organize and operate LGBTQIA+ events at hacker cons. Someone showing up with a MAGA hat is rare, and when it does happen, they're either there to make a statement about free speech (which is fine) or to harass one or more of our attendees (which is unacceptable). So when it does happen, we have to be aware of it, but we don't take any specific actions unless they misbehave. In the wake of white supremacist violence (see second link from my previous comment), not taking note whenever someone with a MAGA hat shows up would be negligent and put targeted people at risk. If you put "allow white supremacist violence against minority groups" on one end of the scale and "avoid any perception of 'political profiling' behavior" on the other, protecting the LGBTQIA+ community that these events serve is going to win every time. Unlike race and sexual orientation, your political beliefs are mutable and the result of your choices. Even moreso, the decision to wear a MAGA hat is a choice. There are many LGBTQIA+ republicans in America, including many of my friends. They don't wear MAGA hats at such events because they're not looking for conflict."

disintegore 7y ago

I think it's perfectly legitimate to consider the MAGA hat a hate symbol. Specifically because of what it represents to American minorities; an implicit threat. At one time the hat represented something legitimate but Trump's first term is coming to its end. The campaign has been over for a long time now. The MAGA hat is yet another symbol that the alt right appropriated for itself. It doesn't just represent Trump supporters and Republicans at large anymore.

zozbot234 7y ago
> Trump's first term is coming to its end. The campaign has been over for a long time now. Long enough for it to start all over again in short order, though. And Trump may well choose to keep the "MAGA" slogan for his re-election campaign - last we heard, it was a choice between that or "Keep America Great".
12elephant 7y ago
How is the MAGA hat a threat? I'm a minority. Not only do I not think it's threatening, I'm even considering buying a few. Not for political reasons, but just because its become so iconic I think they'll be worth a lot more as vintage items in 10-20 years.
- uniacid 7y ago
  They would be great in case you ever run out of firewood.
sydd 7y ago
> Specifically because of what it represents to American minorities; an implicit threat. Why does it represent a threat? Did Trump made any laws that negatively discriminiates minorities? Are there death camps for them? Are they not allowed to hold certain positions?
ctdonath 7y ago
Near as I can tell, this "MAGA hat is a hate symbol" notion comes from people who want a group to embody evils X, Y, & Z so that group can be opposed. Lacking such a group, progressives have designated Trump supporters as such via wanton misinterpretation of legitimate, normal, and earnest positions. The term "alt right" didn't exist to any meaningful degree until Trump was elected, to the dismay of Leftists convinced Hillary would win; her supporters suddenly started using this term to slander the opposition. There are, for most practical purposes, no "white supremacists", "alt right", "Nazis", etc. (have you actually met any?). The Trump Right have been wrongfully slandered as "racist", "xenophobic", "sexist", etc; they just haven't figured out how to counter such libelous & intolerant abuse.