ADVERTISEMENT

We should really be talking more about Nathan Phillips

Also, he never served in Vietnam. He just refers to himself as a “Vietnam era” veteran. Which I’m sure makes him quite popular with ACTUAL Vietnam war veterans.

It’s no wonder Goat nearly shat himself posting this. It had everything. White Catholic kids at the march for life harassing a Native American Vietnam vet. IN MAGA HATS, no less!!! LMAO

It was the perfect storm for better than thou liberals to clutch their pearls over.

To perfect, as it turned out.
I neither shat nor clutched anything. The only people blowing a gasket are you and your fellow MAGABots. The rest of us were having a perfectly fine conversation, including about how the new information changed our perceptions of what happened. Please go back to your cesspool. Thanks.
 
I neither shat nor clutched anything. The only people blowing a gasket are you and your fellow MAGABots. The rest of us were having a perfectly fine conversation, including about how the new information changed our perceptions of what happened. Please go back to your cesspool. Thanks.
Nah, you just haughtily proclaimed that the heartland of America is happily raising an entire generation of bigots, based on a snippet of video from an unknown source on an unvetted website.

That seemed measured and reasonable. :rolleyes:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lucy01
Also, the Diocese of Covington had to be evacuated because they received 3 suspicious packages today.

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/ne...-packages-found-diocese-covington/2661412002/

The cojoneless Diocese is still refusing to retract its initial condemnation of the CovCath students, does not want any more students giving interviews and explanations of what happened and is still looking to punish the kids.

Look for them to set up stocks on Madison, near the Diocese, or maybe on Dixie Highway, in front of the school, in Park Hills.

There are some pretty pissed-off parents right now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: All4You
There is no way you own a hat, not with a head that size.

This is the elitist white liberals version of the racists “I know some black folks.”

I’m glad you’re in my head. Because you lived life exactly like I did.

Why do you take offense to my observations? Does it hit to close to home or something (not saying it does)?

This type of post puzzles me. It’s almost as if folks aren’t allowed to have opinions, grounded in life experience. Is it because it’s different than your perception? I may disagree with someone, but I don’t doubt that they truly feel that way. I’m not in their shoes.

If it makes you feel better, I know plenty of good catholic people in Southern Indiana. Several good folks in the Cincinnati area as well. After being in different areas, I was comparing what happens there to other areas. It IS different. And some of those ways are pretty bad. It’s not all bad, but in general, I stand by my statements. Those aren’t areas I could ever live in, or spend significant times in again. Just not my preference after being elsewhere. And that’s ok. Still puzzled as to how that’s offensive to some folks.

It’s funny- the backlash against what I said is coming mostly from those that feel like I’m talking about them somehow. I don’t know any of you, so I reserve judgment. About you (there are a few that have been out of bounds- and I will/have address/addressed folks then). I don’t know how this somehow became about some of you. Obviously, I was talking in generalities. Which are true (and here’s the important part) IMO.

Those closest to the situation are often the most blinded. Perspective is hard to gain when you never leave, or experience different parts of the country/people with different cultural backgrounds.

Now, if I did directly address one of you, and I did it based on pure emotion (devoid of any facts/substance), I’d apologize. But there’s nothing to apologize for here.
 
Yeah, you just can't read, apparently.

Was just coming here to post this. Stomach churning to watch. Where were their teachers, parents, any adults? I’m sure these boys think they are fine Christians for attending the March for Life. And how timely. This is the exact type of behavior the Gillette ad was talking about. Thoroughly disgusted.

More of that economic anxiety we've heard so much about.

This is someone's son. I wonder what his father thinks. I'd be thinking I was a failure.

maga.jpg

I continue to wonder what happened here. These young men have parents, family, teachers, priests. Presumably some adult minders were present at the Mall with them. There needs to be some soul searching in that community. I'd be horrified if I were an affected parent.

Let’s not be shocked that a bunch of private parochial school kids from freaking Kentucky are abhorrent racists. Water is wet.

That's the obvious takeaway. Like me, James Fallows wonders what the adults are up to, and notes that the Mayor of Covington (where this school is technically not located) has some good points to make.

Still. The MAGA hats. This is what they've been taught it means to make America great again.

Yeah, that's always been obvious. It just hurts me when I see it emerging in young people who didn't get to choose their parents or their community. Every one of those sneering young faces could have been raised and encouraged otherwise.

To be fair, some of them probably were raised and encouraged otherwise. Some of them probably felt bad about being a part of that, even while it was happening. Peer pressure is a bitch at that age.

But it never would have happened in the first place if at least some of them weren't raised to be racist assholes. You can't start a fire without a spark.

All on the first page of the thread. I would say that he had you guys pretty well pegged in your initial reactions to fake news spread by a Twitter bot.
 
Your experiences or sharing them isn't the problem. It's the conclusions you've drawn from them that make you look small. "Several good folks in the Cincinnati area..." Really? Oh, thanks Captain Woke for your blessing.

Those types of environments absolutely produce some serious white entitlement.

I don’t see how anyone can dispute that statement.

And if you can’t see it... you’re probably it blind to it.

Your reaction about what I’ve said is saying a lot about you brother. I didn’t specifically name you- yet you’re obviously very upset about what I said.

And it wasn’t just a few people. The attitude in general is pretty chitty. And I’m far from the only one that’s said that about the area. Cincinnati and the surrounding area had some pretty bad racial strife recently- that’s not an accident. There are conditions that give rise to an attitude/thought pattern, which leads to “flash point” events.

I suggest instead of getting upset about what I’m saying, you instead think about what I’ve said. And not just blindly react to it. Dig a little deeper. We’re never going to get anywhere if we’re all not willing to look in the mirror.
 
Those types of environments absolutely produce some serious white entitlement.

I don’t see how anyone can dispute that statement.

And if you can’t see it... you’re probably it blind to it.

Your reaction about what I’ve said is saying a lot about you brother. I didn’t specifically name you- yet you’re obviously very upset about what I said.

And it wasn’t just a few people. The attitude in general is pretty chitty. And I’m far from the only one that’s said that about the area. Cincinnati and the surrounding area had some pretty bad racial strife recently- that’s not an accident. There are conditions that give rise to an attitude/thought pattern, which leads to “flash point” events.

I suggest instead of getting upset about what I’m saying, you instead think about what I’ve said. And not just blindly react to it. Dig a little deeper. We’re never going to get anywhere if we’re all not willing to look in the mirror.
More people in this very thread have said the opposite of that area. I would think that alone would give you pause, or maybe at least think to yourself “maybe I’m letting my biases cloud my judgement on this”.

And no one is upset because they think you are talking about them. That’s a cheap cop out on your part.

The issue is why is it ok to generalize like that at all? About ANY area?
 
All on the first page of the thread. I would say that he had you guys pretty well pegged in your initial reactions to fake news spread by a Twitter bot.
I'll let Zeke and Rock defend themselves, but as for me, you're way off. The quote you found from me doesn't remotely claim what I'm being accused of; in fact it explicitly says the opposite.
 
More people in this very thread have said the opposite of that area. I would think that alone would give you pause, or maybe at least think to yourself “maybe I’m letting my biases cloud my judgement on this”.

And no one is upset because they think you are talking about them. That’s a cheap cop out on your part.

The issue is why is it ok to generalize like that at all? About ANY area?

I think you’re missing my point. Those areas are more likely to be that way. In general. Than other places I’ve been. I’ll stand by that forever- unless those areas change.

So, is not ok to say that areas like NYC are more accepting (and not as racist, quite frankly)?

And the underlying reason is because of diversity, and exposure to other types of people (talking about race/ethnicity, background, nationality, etc).

That’s all I’m saying here. The more insulated an area is, the more entitled/intolerant the kids end up being. I lived in an area like that. For most of my life, actually.

And those kids turn into adults. And I don’t think anyone can argue that those regions are less diverse (with the exception of a few towns, of course).

Another way to say it is that there are strong correlations there, and my experience backs that up.

I think some of you guys are overreacting.
 
So, is not ok to say that areas like NYC are more accepting (and not as racist, quite frankly)?

And the underlying reason is because of diversity, and exposure to other types of people (talking about race/ethnicity, background, nationality, etc).

College campuses are intended to be diverse and to freely expose all to the free market place of ideas, yet campuses tend to be the most intolerant places around. Two of the most vile comments about the Covington students came from academia.
 
College campuses are intended to be diverse and to freely expose all to the free market place of ideas, yet campuses tend to be the most intolerant places around. Two of the most vile comments about the Covington students came from academia.

CoH, I read about examples of colleges meeting your description on a regular basis

Nevertheless, there are 5,300 colleges in the U.S. so there are bound to be examples.

My question would be...Just how prevalent are these examples among the 5,300 colleges?
.Are the examples often cited an accurate picture of the total landscape.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Marvin the Martian
College campuses are intended to be diverse and to freely expose all to the free market place of ideas, yet campuses tend to be the most intolerant places around. Two of the most vile comments about the Covington students came from academia.
Indicting college campuses and universities as you try to do above is truly vile and serves as a good reminder that shutting down campuses and closing off debate is at the core of the authoritarian agenda. Just an awful post on your part.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Circlejoe
CoH, I read about examples of colleges meeting your description on a regular basis

Nevertheless, there are 5,300 colleges in the U.S. so there are bound to be examples.

My question would be...Just how prevalent are these examples among the 5,300 colleges?
.Are the examples often cited an accurate picture of the total landscape.

For me it is the inverse of my comment on Civington. It is unfair to blame everyone for the actions of a few. A couple hundred may turn out to shout down a conservative speaker out of 40,000 on campus.

Not nearly everyone in Martinsville is a Klan member, not nearly everyone on a campus is what Co thinks.
 
College campuses are intended to be diverse and to freely expose all to the free market place of ideas, yet campuses tend to be the most intolerant places around. Two of the most vile comments about the Covington students came from academia.
Oberlin? Berkley? Liberty? Oral Roberts?

Yeah, those academics are assholes.
 
CoH, I read about examples of colleges meeting your description on a regular basis

Nevertheless, there are 5,300 colleges in the U.S. so there are bound to be examples.

My question would be...Just how prevalent are these examples among the 5,300 colleges?
.Are the examples often cited an accurate picture of the total landscape.

That’s a fair point. I have no way of knowing how many campuses are involved. Yet there are reasons why some entertainers refuse campus gigs, why some speakers are often required to pay security fees to speak, or why speech codes even exist at all.
 
I did too, in violation of my personal general guideline to wait for the rest of the story.
<smug>
I don't get my news from Twitter or Facebook or You Tube, and don't put much stock in anything that's attributed to them unless I see it's been verified by more professional, reliable sources. Sometimes I feel like I'm missing out. And sometimes I feel vindicated.
</smug>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
<smug>
I don't get my news from Twitter or Facebook or You Tube, and don't put much stock in anything that's attributed to them unless I see it's been verified by more professional, reliable sources. Sometimes I feel like I'm missing out. And sometimes I feel vindicated.
</smug>

One problem the media has is a need to be first. That is ill-suited for a world of Twitter. Clearly this blew up on Twitter but of course a million tweets isn't close to confirmation. The media has to learn this and soon. It is better to risk being second or third than risk being wrong.
 
Sweet post bro

Nothing wrong with being wrong Ranger as long as there is some contrition behind being wrong.

I do find something interesting about you though, as a former Republican, you do tend to have a rather disfavorable view of the "rabble" that you used to vote with. You had one of the more strident posts in the beginning of the thread slamming the kids because of where they grew up. I have found in the "Never Trump" conservative media and the "we don't like Trump" former Republican voters a rather interesting shift whereby they are taking on positions contra to what they preached for years (looking at you Bill Kristol) and are much more likely to go after conservatives they believe are acting badly (even to the point of spreading false narratives that led to death threats against teenagers) than they are of going after those whom they have supposedly disagreed with for 30 years.

It is almost as if it is important in a Twitter world to make sure that you signal that you are part of the in-crowd and you are not one of those icky deplorables then it is to advance any policy position. "Orange man bad" has some of you turning on 45 to 50% of the country in a really ugly way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lucy01
Nothing wrong with being wrong Ranger as long as there is some contrition behind being wrong.

I do find something interesting about you though, as a former Republican, you do tend to have a rather disfavorable view of the "rabble" that you used to vote with. You had one of the more strident posts in the beginning of the thread slamming the kids because of where they grew up. I have found in the "Never Trump" conservative media and the "we don't like Trump" former Republican voters a rather interesting shift whereby they are taking on positions contra to what they preached for years (looking at you Bill Kristol) and are much more likely to go after conservatives they believe are acting badly (even to the point of spreading false narratives that led to death threats against teenagers) than they are of going after those whom they have supposedly disagreed with for 30 years.

It is almost as if it is important in a Twitter world to make sure that you signal that you are part of the in-crowd and you are not one of those icky deplorables then it is to advance any policy position. "Orange man bad" has some of you turning on 45 to 50% of the country in a really ugly way.
I have admitted I was wrong on that, along with nearly the entire nation. You, as a now career .125 hitter after that double want to thump your chest? Have at it. Congratulations.

It’s a shame that many of us jumped to conclusions that day, but perhaps many of us did so because of Charlottesville and what happens when the MAGA crowd gets together.

To your other “point”, of course I’m much more critical of what’s become the #NewGOP and it’s disciples. That used to be my party and the Dems have virtually nothing to offer me. I’m much more interested in restoring sanity and competence to my party and getting it out of the hands of white nationalists and dog whistlers. Why aren’t you?

I have no idea what point you’re making about Twitter. You sound like an idiot desperately trying to pigeon hole me. Were I you I’d celebrate my first double Ive hit in a long time and go back to the dugout before you end up going 1/5 and spoiling it.
 
All on the first page of the thread. I would say that he had you guys pretty well pegged in your initial reactions to fake news spread by a Twitter bot.
Nothing I’ve seen or heard has changed my opinion on how the MAGA Hats acted. The only pertinent added information was that the Black Hebrew group acted even worse. If you think kids jumping up and down tomahawking is respectful, that’s your perogative. If you think MagaHats yelling to high school girls about rape and calling them sluts is being responsible , again good for you. The only things that changed my opinion was the added information about the Black Hebrews. Then MagaHats got a good pr firm and somehow turned these poor innocents into saints. My biggest concern from the beginning continues after the information we have received. Where were the adults?
 
  • Like
Reactions: iu_a_att
Nothing wrong with being wrong Ranger as long as there is some contrition behind being wrong.

I do find something interesting about you though, as a former Republican, you do tend to have a rather disfavorable view of the "rabble" that you used to vote with. You had one of the more strident posts in the beginning of the thread slamming the kids because of where they grew up. I have found in the "Never Trump" conservative media and the "we don't like Trump" former Republican voters a rather interesting shift whereby they are taking on positions contra to what they preached for years (looking at you Bill Kristol) and are much more likely to go after conservatives they believe are acting badly (even to the point of spreading false narratives that led to death threats against teenagers) than they are of going after those whom they have supposedly disagreed with for 30 years.

It is almost as if it is important in a Twitter world to make sure that you signal that you are part of the in-crowd and you are not one of those icky deplorables then it is to advance any policy position. "Orange man bad" has some of you turning on 45 to 50% of the country in a really ugly way.
The bad behavior we saw remains the bad behavior we saw. I’m not contrite.
 
From Tucker Carlson’s monologue. I thought it was interesting.

What was so interesting about the coverage of Friday’s video was how much of it mentioned something called “privilege.” Alex Cranz, an editor at Gizmodo, for example, wrote, “From elementary school through college, I went to school with sheltered upper middle-class white boys who could devastate with a smirk. A facial gesture that weaponized their privilege. Infuriatingly you can’t fight that effing smirk with a punch or words. We saw that as Trump smirked his way through the election and we’ll see it as that boy from Kentucky’s friends, family, and school protect him. I effing hate that smirk. It says ‘I’m richer, I’m white, and I’m a guy.'”

What’s so fascinating about all these attacks is how inverted they are. These are high school kids from Kentucky. Do they really have more privilege than Alex Cranz from Gizmodo? Probably not. In fact, probably much less. They’re far less privileged than virtually everyone who called for them to be destroyed, based on the fact that they have too much privilege.

Consider Kara Swisher, for example, an opinion columnist at the New York Times. Swisher went to Princeton Day School and then Georgetown, then got a graduate degree at Columbia. She’s become rich and famous, in the meantime, by toadying for billionaire tech CEOs. She’s their handmaiden. Nobody considers her very talented. And yet she’s somehow highly influential in our society. Is she more privileged than the boys of Covington Catholic in Kentucky? Of course she is. Maybe that’s why she feels the need to call them Nazis, which she did, repeatedly.

So what’s actually going on here? Well, it’s not really about race. In fact, most of the stories about race really aren’t about race. And this is no different. This story is about the people in power protecting their power, and justifying their power, by destroying and mocking those weaker than they are.
 
Nothing I’ve seen or heard has changed my opinion on how the MAGA Hats acted. The only pertinent added information was that the Black Hebrew group acted even worse. If you think kids jumping up and down tomahawking is respectful, that’s your perogative. If you think MagaHats yelling to high school girls about rape and calling them sluts is being responsible , again good for you. The only things that changed my opinion was the added information about the Black Hebrews. Then MagaHats got a good pr firm and somehow turned these poor innocents into saints. My biggest concern from the beginning continues after the information we have received. Where were the adults?
Third time I’ve asked wrt the bolded-where are you getting this info?
 
The bad behavior we saw remains the bad behavior we saw. I’m not contrite.
My takeaways from all this.
1. We saw young men wearing gear showing themselves sympathetic to white nationalism and male prerogative behaving in ways that are entirely consistent with those sensibilities.
2. We should keep in mind that they are kids and that people are not reducible to their sympathies or to their (mis)deeds.
3. Finally, authentic soul searching is always rewarded. Big kudos to all who did some.
 
My takeaways from all this.
1. We saw young men wearing gear showing themselves sympathetic to white nationalism and male prerogative behaving in ways that are entirely consistent with those sensibilities.
2. We should keep in mind that they are kids and that people are not reducible to their sympathies or to their (mis)deeds.
3. Finally, authentic soul searching is always rewarded. Big kudos to all who did some.
Wearing a MAGA hat does NOT definitively show that the person is sympathetic to white nationalism. That's a gigantic leap. I have seen black people wearing them, by the way. Only a few personally, but I've seen them in the news now and then - usually because they're being harassed by others for wearing them. You can Google and see this for yourself. Anyway, think these black people are sympathetic to white nationalism? Maybe they're just Trump supporters for whatever reason that might be. While you and I might think they're wrong for supporting Trump, it's entirely unfair to claim that wearing a MAGA had shows that they are "sympathetic to white nationalism."

Agree, pretty much, with 2 and 3.

Got a game to watch!
 
Last edited:
Wearing a MAGA hat does NOT definitively show that the person is sympathetic to white nationalism. That's a gigantic leap. I have seen a black people wearing them, by the way. Only a few personally, but I've seen them in the news now and then - usually because they're being harassed by others for wearing them. You can Google and see this for yourself. Anyway, think these black people are sympathetic to white nationalism? Maybe they're just Trump supporters for whatever reason that might be. While you and I might think they're wrong for supporting Trump, it's entirely unfair to claim that wearing a MAGA had shows that they are "sympathetic to white nationalism."

Agree, pretty much, with 2 and 3.

Got a game to watch!
I am accurately reporting what I think we saw. I have also discussed at great length the biases all of us have and how that might color our different perceptions. You are telling me you think my perceptions are off. How do you know? Because they differ from yours that you take as accurate.

On another note...I hadn't expected IU to be unable to score points. :(
 
I am accurately reporting what I think we saw. I have also discussed at great length the biases all of us have and how that might color our different perceptions. You are telling me you think my perceptions are off. How do you know? Because they differ from yours that you take as accurate.

On another note...I hadn't expected IU to be unable to score points. :(
You’re off because it’s wildly off base to make the blanket statement that wearing a MAGA hat shows they are sympathetic to white nationalism. That’s objectively unfair and false.

This game is objectively maddening.
 
You’re off because it’s wildly off base to make the blanket statement that wearing a MAGA hat shows they are sympathetic to white nationalism. That’s objectively unfair and false.

This game is objectively maddening.
I don't mean to speak for att, but I think you are not understanding him correctly. If he's saying what I think he's saying - and I agree with him if I interpret this correctly - it's not that MAGA hats are indicators that the people wearing them necessarily are sympathetic to white nationalism, but rather that the act of wearing a MAGA hat signals to (some) others that the person holds such sympathies. This signal may or may not be intentional, and it may or may not actually accurately reflect whether those sympathies are present, but I don't think it's even in question that such signalling happens, as the response by so many to the mere fact that these kids were wearing those hats aptly demonstrates.
 
  • Like
Reactions: iu_a_att
You’re off because it’s wildly off base to make the blanket statement that wearing a MAGA hat shows they are sympathetic to white nationalism. That’s objectively unfair and false.
If sympathy for white nationalism and/or male privilege were a crime I wouldn't convict someone on the basis of wearing a magahat. But if someone is wearing a magahat my best guess about how to interpret that signal is as signal of sympathy for white nationalism and/or male privilege.
 
I don't mean to speak for att, but I think you are not understanding him correctly. If he's saying what I think he's saying - and I agree with him if I interpret this correctly - it's not that MAGA hats are indicators that the people wearing them necessarily are sympathetic to white nationalism, but rather that the act of wearing a MAGA hat signals to (some) others that the person holds such sympathies. This signal may or may not be intentional, and it may or may not actually accurately reflect whether those sympathies are present, but I don't think it's even in question that such signalling happens, as the response by so many to the mere fact that these kids were wearing those hats aptly demonstrates.
You’ve just described stereotyping. Why is it ok to do so in ANY situation?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tacoll
I don't mean to speak for att, but I think you are not understanding him correctly. If he's saying what I think he's saying - and I agree with him if I interpret this correctly - it's not that MAGA hats are indicators that the people wearing them necessarily are sympathetic to white nationalism, but rather that the act of wearing a MAGA hat signals to (some) others that the person holds such sympathies. This signal may or may not be intentional, and it may or may not actually accurately reflect whether those sympathies are present, but I don't think it's even in question that such signalling happens, as the response by so many to the mere fact that these kids were wearing those hats aptly demonstrates.
I think that is helpful...if I am not saying that then perhaps that is what I ought to mean to say. The thing you add is that the wearers know or ought to know that the magahats will be interpreted as sympathy for white nationalism and/or male privilege. That makes the choice to wear the hat more revealing. But, in Aloha's favor, puerile types enjoy being transgressive/rebellious or not "politically correct" as a way to try and establish some individual agency. It might very well be the case that racist and sexist crap isn't really about racism or sexism at all but just developmental acting out. This is age appropriate in 15 year olds too. But behaviorally (meaning from the perspective of those who have to deal with it) it really doesn't matter whether the racism and sexism are the products of puerility or authentic racism and sexism.

{additional thought: if I see someone wearing a magahat it is reasonable for me to expect to encounter racist and/or sexist behavior which is an important thing for me to know.}
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT