Trump booed at World Series

[hollodero]

(10-30-2019, 07:19 PM)Dill Wrote: 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--

Now, the same thing is said by those that want to see Hillary in jail. Trump is smeared and she is guilty, they say, and most probably believe it vividly. For various reasons like being heavily biased or uninformed or other reasons that sure are mostly not too flattering for these individuals. And it's very well possible that Trump is indeed guilty and Hillary was just a victim af scandalization gate (she probably was in most instances). But it really is not about that so much. In either case, it is up to the justice system to make a guilty claim, not to the folks at a rally or in a stadium. This is about behaviour - and mainly about the reaction to these two instances. I'm against it in either case and I find it astonishing that this is a controversial stance. You and many seem to say, aaah it depends, when that guy is an ass and really deserves it than it's totally ok, and not just ok but actually hilarious. I'm not on board with that.

And again, I'm not at all saying it's the same thing, Trump rally goers and stadium goers and their chants. It most certainly is not the same thing. That doesn't take away from my stance that a "mob" (I just mean a bunch of people, nothing explicitly derogatory) should not go out there and demand jailtime of any kind. In principle. By the way, I'm not questioning their right to do so - I question if it's a good thing to do so.
But I am afraid I am just repeating myself here. Your claim of still intact moral highground is noted, and I do not wholly disagree by claiming the opposite, that there is none left and all sides are the same now. There sure is still quite a difference. I might find such chants even understandable, I just don't find them endorseable. From a moral standpoint and also because these chants really turn nothing for the better and possibly some things for the worse - see polarization, entrenchment and so on. It sure is about appearance/perception too.

Just 2 quick additional things to address some points made: a) this also is not about democratic leadership and b) to me it really is not so much about the chanters in the stadium as about those that find those chanters brave and funny and whatnot and fully endorse their deed. That is the thing I saw and see as a bit hypocritical. The chanter's motives do not factor into that.