On Saturday, June 23, 2018, Maxine Waters was quoted as saying, seen on video saying, and admitted saying:
"If you see anybody from that [Trump] Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them, and you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere.”
Yeah, she "walked it back." Yeah, the left rationalized it. Yeah, the right touted it as a call to violence.
I view it as a vote whore polarizing everyone, probably by unthinking accident ("you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere") with no regard for or understanding of the consequences - at best.
A few days later, an article was published that I read and bookmarked for later consumption. Now is the time. (I have a friend who is now being threatened by righties about abortion.)
I won't name the publication - to deny the Coolerites the usual response of refusing to consider "the idea" by simply bashing the source. Those who want to can google and try and find it - to see if they can/should not oppose/support the ideas, while irony hovers everywhere.
The article asked how exactly did Waters think her comments would work out? (My answer - she didn't think at all.). Would righties follows suit and get aggressive in public toward lefties? Would security and/or law enforcement end up causing both sides unintended/unanticipated harms? Would use of aggressive public confrontations change minds or policies on either side?
I did an independent study in undergrad on "mob violence" - mostly because of Kent State. It was from a psychology perspective, but any study of mob violence necessarily confronts politics and social issues - its where "mobs" are born for most instances. It suffices to say that - for the most part - humans become the lowest common behavior denominator when a mob goes violent. They commit harms. - even to their own side - out of panic, out of rage, out of unintended consequences. ("We thought we might get a medal for picking up the garbage, or get yelled at. Instead we were arrested.")
The author discussed a LOT of then-recent individual events.
Protesters showing up at Trump campaign stops, and Trump saying "if they disrupt us, just beat the crap out them" (paraphrasing.)
Lefties getting hurt in a melee when righties were being protested.
The guy shooting up the GOP softball practice.
A black guy in a MAGA hat getting rousted in a restaurant.
Joe Wilson shouting "you lie" at Obama.
Airplane incidents.
Disrupted Broadway shows.
In general, the author opined that - for the most part -angry mobs and angry individuals are not really all that good historically at deterring a particular unwanted behavior. Instead, the purpose and/or effect is instilling fear and giving a lot of other people an excuse to act out = all of them all the time justifying their acts with claims that (paraphrasing) “I’m not harassing or assaulting another human being, I’m standing up for good causes! human rights! doing the "right" thing.”
Generally, the author stated that harassment of public figures on the right would only lead to harassment of public figures on the left. Biblically, "An eye for an eye = a blind world."
The question was posed whether we still settle our differences through debate/discourse/the ballot box/the courtroom — or by stirring up an angry crowd and implying (or maybe more than implying) a threat of physical violence against the political opposition.
As typical nowadays, the article linked another, which was discussing media and movies, and said:
"For all the problems I have with modern journalism, journalism itself is incredibly important. Or at least it should be. And you won’t find many people who love movies more than I do or are a bigger supporter of the pursuit of truth. That last part, the pursuit of truth, permeates everything else. Without it, nothing has meaning, nothing matters. If the truth is Play-Doh, it can be molded and bastardized to fit whatever the holder of it wants it to. . . .
The United States, or any other free people, needs access to accurate, truthful information. Without it we’re serfs making decisions based on lies told by those in power. When you make decisions based on lies, you are under the control of those feeding you the lies. . . .
The American people have never been more misinformed by the media, but they’ve also never had more access to more information. The house of cards that is the mainstream media will either fall or be forced to change completely. Until that happens, it’s up to you not only be informed but to inform others."
So non-violence and love-speech and truth ...
If you could go back and lovingly slap some sense into Maxine - would ya?
Should Trump have toned it down?
Should we?
Pondering in the heat ...
"If you see anybody from that [Trump] Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them, and you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere.”
Yeah, she "walked it back." Yeah, the left rationalized it. Yeah, the right touted it as a call to violence.
I view it as a vote whore polarizing everyone, probably by unthinking accident ("you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere") with no regard for or understanding of the consequences - at best.
A few days later, an article was published that I read and bookmarked for later consumption. Now is the time. (I have a friend who is now being threatened by righties about abortion.)
I won't name the publication - to deny the Coolerites the usual response of refusing to consider "the idea" by simply bashing the source. Those who want to can google and try and find it - to see if they can/should not oppose/support the ideas, while irony hovers everywhere.
The article asked how exactly did Waters think her comments would work out? (My answer - she didn't think at all.). Would righties follows suit and get aggressive in public toward lefties? Would security and/or law enforcement end up causing both sides unintended/unanticipated harms? Would use of aggressive public confrontations change minds or policies on either side?
I did an independent study in undergrad on "mob violence" - mostly because of Kent State. It was from a psychology perspective, but any study of mob violence necessarily confronts politics and social issues - its where "mobs" are born for most instances. It suffices to say that - for the most part - humans become the lowest common behavior denominator when a mob goes violent. They commit harms. - even to their own side - out of panic, out of rage, out of unintended consequences. ("We thought we might get a medal for picking up the garbage, or get yelled at. Instead we were arrested.")
The author discussed a LOT of then-recent individual events.
Protesters showing up at Trump campaign stops, and Trump saying "if they disrupt us, just beat the crap out them" (paraphrasing.)
Lefties getting hurt in a melee when righties were being protested.
The guy shooting up the GOP softball practice.
A black guy in a MAGA hat getting rousted in a restaurant.
Joe Wilson shouting "you lie" at Obama.
Airplane incidents.
Disrupted Broadway shows.
In general, the author opined that - for the most part -angry mobs and angry individuals are not really all that good historically at deterring a particular unwanted behavior. Instead, the purpose and/or effect is instilling fear and giving a lot of other people an excuse to act out = all of them all the time justifying their acts with claims that (paraphrasing) “I’m not harassing or assaulting another human being, I’m standing up for good causes! human rights! doing the "right" thing.”
Generally, the author stated that harassment of public figures on the right would only lead to harassment of public figures on the left. Biblically, "An eye for an eye = a blind world."
The question was posed whether we still settle our differences through debate/discourse/the ballot box/the courtroom — or by stirring up an angry crowd and implying (or maybe more than implying) a threat of physical violence against the political opposition.
As typical nowadays, the article linked another, which was discussing media and movies, and said:
"For all the problems I have with modern journalism, journalism itself is incredibly important. Or at least it should be. And you won’t find many people who love movies more than I do or are a bigger supporter of the pursuit of truth. That last part, the pursuit of truth, permeates everything else. Without it, nothing has meaning, nothing matters. If the truth is Play-Doh, it can be molded and bastardized to fit whatever the holder of it wants it to. . . .
The United States, or any other free people, needs access to accurate, truthful information. Without it we’re serfs making decisions based on lies told by those in power. When you make decisions based on lies, you are under the control of those feeding you the lies. . . .
The American people have never been more misinformed by the media, but they’ve also never had more access to more information. The house of cards that is the mainstream media will either fall or be forced to change completely. Until that happens, it’s up to you not only be informed but to inform others."
So non-violence and love-speech and truth ...
If you could go back and lovingly slap some sense into Maxine - would ya?
Should Trump have toned it down?
Should we?
Pondering in the heat ...
Last edited:
