What does a MAGA hat stand for?

[Arwon]

About as odd as an Australian who continually acts like an expert on American politics, society, and culture...

Ah but you're such an exotic terra incognita, how could anyone truly know a place so remote and inscrutable

 

[Arwon]

It’s not just elected officials, it’s “woke” big business executives, Hollywood stars, TV talking heads, and a detestable leech class of lobbyists and public policy wanks.

Lol you can just say Cultural Marxism if you want

 

[Manfred Belheim]

"Humans universally deserve a basic set of rights" is not what I would define as extremism. It is telling that you would.

In turn, it's telling that you regard (de facto) citizenship as a basic human right.

Or more specifically in this case, it seems to be the right to not be exposed to trains as a scare tactic to dissuade criminal activities.

 

[Patine]

In turn, it's telling that you regard (de facto) citizenship as a basic human right.

Or more specifically in this case, it seems to be the right to not be exposed to trains as a scare tactic to dissuade criminal activities.

Nations are artificial socio-political constructs and legal contrivances with arbitrary borders that can, through various just as arbitrary mechanisms, be renegotiated theoretically at any time. Human rights are more natural and defensible, and should hold a HIGHER priority and standing than the flimsy and transient "nations" of the world and history.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I don't believe any rights are "natural", but that's a complete aside and I'm not sure what your point is there. Citizenship isn't a basic right though in any case. At least not citizenship of choice. Illegally entering somewhere is also criminal, and it's also not a right to not have to face consequences for criminal activity. And I don't believe it's morally abhorrent to try and dissuade people from criminal activity either.

 

[Patine]

I don't believe any rights are "natural", but that's a complete aside and I'm not sure what your point is there. Citizenship isn't a basic right though in any case. At least not citizenship of choice. Illegally entering somewhere is also criminal, and it's also not a right to not have to face consequences for criminal activity. And I don't believe it's morally abhorrent to try and dissuade people from criminal activity either.

But a lot of nations (including the United States) occupy and administer whole tracts of land as their own integral territory and enforce their laws there - portions of their land where their ownership of it is, in and of itself, criminal and illegal (Hawai'i, for example, is not legally part of the United States, and never has been, and the U.S. imposing and enforcing it's laws there is no more legal than a Mafia family doing so).

 

[luiz]

But a lot of nations (including the United States) occupy and administer whole tracts of land as their own integral territory and enforce their laws there - portions of their land where their ownership of it is, in and of itself, criminal and illegal (Hawai'i, for example, is not legally part of the United States, and never has been, and the U.S. imposing and enforcing it's laws there is no more legal than a Mafia family doing so).

Well if you wanna join the Mafia you have to respect their laws, or there might be negative consequences for you, even if you consider their laws illegitimate. And the Mafia does not take on new members unless they want to.

Likewise you can consider the US as illegitimate as you want, but people trying to enter territory they rule over can expect to be subject to its laws, and face negative consequences if they break them. The same applies for all countries in the world. No nation-state, as far as I can tell, believes in universal citizenship.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

But a lot of nations (including the United States) occupy and administer whole tracts of land as their own integral territory and enforce their laws there - portions of their land where their ownership of it is, in and of itself, criminal and illegal (Hawai'i, for example, is not legally part of the United States, and never has been, and the U.S. imposing and enforcing it's laws there is no more legal than a Mafia family doing so).

Okay. And?

 

[Patine]

Well if you wanna join the Mafia you have to respect their laws, or there might be negative consequences for you, even if you consider their laws illegitimate. And the Mafia does not take on new members unless they want to.

Likewise you can consider the US as illegitimate as you want, but people trying to enter territory they rule over can expect to be subject to its laws, and face negative consequences if they break them. The same applies for all countries in the world. No nation-state, as far as I can tell, believes in universal citizenship.

I didn't say the whole United States was illegitimate. Although that response is typical of the tendency to escalate other people's comments to the nearest extreme - regardless of true intention - for easier fodder to attack and criticize their points without having to put nearly as much thought into it. This "putting words in people's mouths to make them seem like easier targets in debate," is degenerating the whole dialogue, and is a sign of a destructive zeitgeist in a downward spiral. However, not everything the United States government (or most other governments on Earth) do are actually legal, even by their own laws. So, if governments can't follow their own laws, then what inherent respect and deference do citizens and foreigners alike owe them, as a baseline?

 

[Naskra]

No nation-state, as far as I can tell, believes in universal citizenship

Argentina came pretty close to this, though lately they've been getting that build-a-wall itch.

 

[luiz]

Argentina came pretty close to this, though lately they've been getting that build-a-wall itch.

Hum, South American nations typically are quite open towards immigrants, but there was never open borders. Argentina had several rounds of amnesty to illegal aliens over the last decades, which is pretty liberal in itself, but proves that there was such a thing as an "illegal alien" in Argentina.

 

[civvver]

What do you mean by "politics"? Disagreeing over the best way to regulate marijuana in a specific state, for example, is different from supporting legislation that discriminates against transgender soldiers.

Wearing a maga hat doesn't automatically mean you support legislation that discriminates against transgender soldiers. It's normal to not agree with all legislation/view points of a party. It's impossible to find a candidate you agree with everything on.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

"Great" is a synonym for "Transphobic". Or "Racist". Or anything you like really.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I have at least a dozen dish scrapers because they give them away at every city function

I did not know these were a thing!

Yes that is an extreme position to take. I'll use an example from my time as an intelligence collector to illustrate why. When it comes to who the US military can collect intelligence on, the law makes it very clear that the military cannot collect intelligence on US persons (defined as any citizen or legal resident of the US) and if they do so accidentally, they must pass that intelligence on to the relevant law enforcement agency or dispose of it within 90 days of collecting it. Obviously, no such restrictions exist when it comes to the collection of intelligence on foreigners and we can more or less spy on them as much as we want and use any underhanded tactic we want to do it. This is because US persons are protected by the 4th Amendment and foreigners are not.

I had no idea you had such a strong stance on Trump spying on Ambassador Yavonovich. I agree it was illegal and immoral and impeachable.

 

[Gorbles]

Wearing a maga hat doesn't automatically mean you support legislation that discriminates against transgender soldiers. It's normal to not agree with all legislation/view points of a party. It's impossible to find a candidate you agree with everything on.

Voting for the Republican party, perhaps, does not. But even then you view voting for the Republican party as the "better option", which means that the legislation against transgender soldiers is an acceptable price to pay for whatever it is you think the Republicans do better. People are free to disagree with you, morally and with regards to policy, on this. You're not immune to criticism just because you don't explicitly agree with the legislation the party you're voting for is passing.

However, a "MAGA" hat is more than just that. It's populist; it's support, explicitly, for Trump's messaging and his specific position as POTUS. Now, this isn't a guarantee of anything of the sort, but that's not what I was asking, was it? I didn't ask if you supported such things. I said you need to define what you meant by "politics", because you uncharitably reduced the arguments made by people in this thread to "you're a bigot because we disagree with you".

I suppose the better question would be: why do you think there should be absolutely zero assumptions associated with wearing a MAGA hat, or voting Republican? I see plenty of comments and jibes about liberals, "woke" activists and Democrat voters from CFC posters. Why are negative connotations about MAGA hats apparently ridiculous, and / or unfair? Connotations that arose from discussing someone who isn't even a CFC poster, and (presumably) remains completely unaware of this little corner of the Internet.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Wearing a maga hat doesn't automatically mean you support legislation that discriminates against transgender soldiers. It's normal to not agree with all legislation/view points of a party. It's impossible to find a candidate you agree with everything on.

Who cares if you disagree, you're still voting them in regardless, your personal opinions are meaningless In comparison to your vote.

It's such bs "oh I don't agree with their discrimination against trans soldiers" doesn't do anything to undo the harm voting republican causes to minorities.

 

[luiz]

Who cares if you disagree, you're still voting them in regardless, your personal opinions are meaningless In comparison to your vote.

It's such bs "oh I don't agree with their discrimination against trans soldiers" doesn't do anything to undo the harm voting republican causes to minorities.

Preventing Trans people from serving in the military is wrong but frankly it's not a major issue and one could very well disagree with that and still vote for the politicians pushing this if they agreed on more substantial matters.

American political discourse has become so hysterical and hyperbolic that we now have to pretend that not allowing Trans people in the military is the moral equivalent of the Holocaust or something. Chill.

 

[Gorbles]

Preventing Trans people from serving in the military is wrong but frankly it's not a major issue and one could very well disagree with that and still vote for the politicians pushing this if they agreed on more substantial matters.

American political discourse has become so hysterical and hyperbolic that we now have to pretend that not allowing Trans people in the military is the moral equivalent of the Holocaust or something. Chill.

"discrimination against a minority is not a major issue" is definitely not the thing I thought you'd say, here.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

What the discrimination actually is is surely a factor when weighing up the severity of an issue.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

My issue is the claim that civvver or Rah are somehow free of any blame just because they disagree with the Gops stance, it's nothing more than an attempt to distance themselves from the harm that they have enabled and it's a weak sauce excuse that would be thrown out in any other context.

If i commit an act, even without the intent to specifically harm someone or some group I'm still responsible for the resulting pain, even if it's something seemingly minor or done in good faith and the onus is on me to recognize, acknowledge and possibly even change my actions as a result, except I ask only for the former two, not the latter.

Now if you're a genuine ally you would probably at least make an attempt to do the latter but right now as it stands both of the aforementioned people won't even recognize that their actions are harmful to minorities regardless of their individual intents so I'm not exactly hopeful that they're going to do anything to ameliorate the potential issues they enable.