Trump booed at World Series

[Dill]

(10-30-2019, 03:41 AM)hollodero Wrote: Both sides sport a mob demanding jailtime for a political opponent. Of course one of the nuances would probably be that those who demand it for Trump have more basis in fact for that. Also he started it, he sure deserved a taste of his own medicine, I do not dispute all that. But it's still behavior that is spooky, and how that can not be seen as losing some moral highground is baffling to me. I just can repeat it, one can either be appalled by a certain behaviour (like participating in a "lock her up" chant) or display the same behaviour at the next best chance - but with doing the latter, the first goes out of the window. And a similar logic applies for denouncing the rally goers for their chants and at the same time cheering for the baseball chanters. @hypocrisy question, that is the hypocrisy.

Hmmm. Let's do a MORAL HIGH GROUND check here. Has anyone had it, lost some and how much? Which hypocrites denounce Trump chants but cheer for the baseball chanters?

Mob #1 is coached by the POTUS to demand jailtime for someone acquitted of a crime, thereby breaking a social/political norm of decency in place for decades. This mob comes to Trump rallies to chant the chant, to target and punish scapegoats.

Can we say NO HIGH GROUND ANYWHERE there, AT ALL, from the top down? I.e., including the LEADER of THE REPUBLICAN PARTY?

"Mob" #2, on the other hand, came to watch baseball, likely included as many Trump supporters and independents whose degree of participation is unclear. But in an apparent spontaneous protest--ie. not orchestrated by any LEADER(s) of THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY--a fraction of the baseball "mob" ironically turned the jail chant on its originator, who does appear guilty of many crimes, and whom you (justly assuming the high moral ground) agree "deserved a taste of his own medicine."  

If jailing an innocent person is not the moral equivalent of jailing a guilty person (even though charges against them are "the same"), then I don't see how chanting "lock her up" (and meaning it) regarding an innocent person can be the moral equivalent of chanting "lock him up" regarding someone whose behavior is legally defined as criminal--especially if a primary motive to the chant may be mockery or ironic reprimand rather than full on endorsement of such chants or even just locking people up.

Further, HIGH GROUND CHECK tells me that the baseball chant was not orchestrated by any LEADER(S) of THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY (point made by C-Dawg). Neither dem leaders/candidates nor the party predicate rallies on such behavior. And this one off protest doesn't have the party endorsement of ritual, repeated behavior at rallies.  So this incident does not touch the Democratic party leaders at all. HIGH GROUND INTACT.

Still, does not the baseball "mob" at least lose SOME high ground? I suppose a little for some Dem rank and file and probably some independents who will chant "jail'em" if the other side started it. And they lost that little only because it is the first step down a slippery slope whose bottom the other side has already plumbed. So I agree with you, Hollo, best not take that step at all.  Just don't agree that that first step rises, in this case, to any concerning equivalency.  Dem leadership and party, though, has lost no high ground--until they endorse such chants as campaign ritual.

Ergo--there is no logical path from "But the words are the same" to a moral equivalence between the party of Trump and the party opposing him. Not that you were making that leap, but there are people who do do so just because they want to, and any ol' "same" will do the trick for them.  That people want to embrace such equivocation bodes far more ill for democracy than spontaneous Trump mockers.

Finally, the "hypocrisy" of people who denounce orchestrated mob chants targeting scapegoats, while cheering such chants when ironically turned on the Scapegoater-in-chief. I re-read the posts on this thread looking for cheerleaders. I just find people like yourself who don't approve but think Trump called it upon himself and admit to a bit of Schadenfreude.  Some are arguing against equivalence, which Trump defenders (framing only black/white either/or options) could equivocate to cheerleading. (Extreme far left radicals Fred and Dino have endorsed booing Trump, at least, and, in the post-truth world of equivalence gone wild, thereby incurred charges they are on the same level as a president who mocks sexual assault victims.)

Do we know that the fraction of baseball chanters have previously denounced the Trump chanters?  Since none are available for questioning, we can only guess.  Maybe some are fine with Trump chanters striking their targets, just as most baseball fans are fine with the other side cheering their own team.  So in that case not hypocritical.  Maybe some are against scapegoating chants, and so think it an opportunity to teach Trump a lesson; so they don't at all see themselves as mobbing a scapegoat, doing "the same thing" Trump voters do, endorsing the same for Dem rallies. We don't really know.

What we do know is that there is no reason to stretch that spontaneous chanting of one fraction of a "mob" at one baseball game to cover people who are not chanting, or defending the chanting, like Democratic leaders or anti-Trumpers on this list--the whole "other side" protesting Trump's behavior on ethical grounds-- and then calling THEM all hypocrites who just ARE what they protest.