Responding to public mocking

[John in Covina]

Only if you consider the ACLU to be political.

 

[Sam Craig]

Only if you consider the ACLU to be political.

Absolutely!

Not to mention they are exceedingly anti-hat

I saw one of them kick a Stetson Whippet to death once and then they nailed its corpse to a fence while they all lined up to mock it.

It was a tragic thing to see

But to get back to the point ... Having enjoyed hats on a regular basis since the '60s ... I would suggest to just enjoy the love of hats and don't worry about what others think

Sam

 

[John in Covina]

Wait, what - hang on. You actually think people should be compelled by law to take behaviour-altering medication if they deviate from a to-down, established conceptualisation of normality? Now, please don't think I'm holding the thread off-topic, because actually lot's of people hold this view but to think that would solve the problems of people who get mocked for wearing a hat? Now that is crazy. More likely hat wearers would end up institutionalised and medicated as well.

Or was this a joke I didn't get?

Well done.

 

[Italian-wiseguy]

Sorry, wiseguy, I was joking. I lived in Italy for several months many years ago. I felt like I was taking my life in my hands every time I took to the roadways. It is a tough place to drive for sure, particularly in Rome where drivers speed down one way streets in the wrong direction.

I can understand you very well; I myself felt in risk every time I was by foot and had to cross roads in Rome, and it's not that in the town in which I was born people stop for pedestrians crossing on walkways... not even the slightest idea to do so... but in Rome drivers give the impression that either they're looking to the other side, or they're actually pointing to you!

As for honking, there's a lot of honking here: for the wrong reasons, as usual

ciao!!

 

[Sam Craig]

Dang,

I never realized how great it was to live out West where men are men and sheep are nervous ... and everyone who wants to wear a hat does so without putting up with guff

Not baaaaad!

Sam

 

[danofarlington]

I. Plus as someone else said earlier, two world wars wiped out most of the decent gentlemen or at least made a big enough generation gap and our culture of respect wasn't passed on to the next generation.

Maybe that's it. I would say though that in my opinion, in the U.S. contemporary hat wearing is not a continuation of tradition, but a new discovery. It took fifty years of hat absence for it to become cool again, assuming that now it's cool. Now we're free to re-discover all of the virtues of fedoras as if for the first time. I know I feel that way. Turning to the problem of what to say, although I haven't been mocked yet (I'm 57 and somewhat beyond mocking; mockers save their mockery for those their own age), when it happens I plan to say, "don't like my bodacious hat, eh?" They're free to not like my hats. But my real position is, I don't much care, if I'm convinced the hat works on me. If it works it works, and mockers be darned like socks.

 

[John in Covina]

Maybe that's it. I would say though that in my opinion, in the U.S. contemporary hat wearing is not a continuation of tradition, but a new discovery. It took fifty years of hat absence for it to become cool again, assuming that now it's cool. Now we're free to re-discover all of the virtues of fedoras as if for the first time. I know I feel that way. Turning to the problem of what to say, although I haven't been mocked yet (I'm 57 and somewhat beyond mocking; mockers save their mockery for those their own age), when it happens I plan to say, "don't like my bodacious hat, eh?" They're free to not like my hats. But my real position is, I don't much care, if I'm convinced the hat works on me. If it works it works, and mockers be darned like socks.

Like water off a ducks back.

 

[fmw]

Perhaps the best approach to take with mockers is to extend a friendly middle finger.

 

[John in Covina]

Don't want to stray too far from topic, but that is not the case according to the NIMH: http://www.nimh.nih.gov/statistics/SMI_AASR.shtml <-- shows less than 5% of all Americans have serious mental health issues.

There is a Cornell Study from 2000 that looks at mental health in the work place that places depression at about 1 on in 10.

"Yearly, in the US, approximately one in ten adults experiences a depressive disorder."

 

[randooch]

Only if you consider the ACLU to be political.

You tell me. From their mission statement:

"The ACLU's stated mission is "to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States."

 

[jlee562]

There is a Cornell Study from 2000 that looks at mental health in the work place that places depression at about 1 on in 10.

"Yearly, in the US, approximately one in ten adults experiences a depressive disorder."

Without a link to verify, we have no way of knowing whether or not this is the truth. Regardless, if we accept this at face value, this does not square with what you claimed earlier:

Nearly one out of ten people in public has some serious mental health issues and since in the US the ACLU has made it so they can't legally be compelled to take their meds, we all suffer because of it.

Depression can be, but is by no means always, a "serious mental health issue." Nor is the work place the general population. The NIMH statistics, which go up to 2008 (which obviously supersedes your supposed study), show the prevalence of "serious mental illness," which is what you originally claimed, at less than 5% of the total population. Your study (if it exists) does not verify what you claimed earlier.

And by the by, I don't know which case you are referencing with your crack at the ACLU, but the most recent incident that I am aware of was the 2006 case in New Mexico whereby a judge struck down "Kendra's Law," which was found to be in contradiction of existing state laws, which barred compulsory medication of mentally ill, yet competent patients (no, they are not mutually exclusive categories).

 

[fmw]

You tell me. From their mission statement:

"The ACLU's stated mission is "to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States."

Yes it is very political. The political nature of the ACLU derives from its selection of the rights and liberties to be defended. They do not defend rights that do not appeal to them such as gun ownership rights. It picks and chooses the rights it wishes to defend and is, for that reason, political.

 

[Hoyt Clagwell]

Things I Believe.
I believe that a person should be able to wear any such hat they choose.
I believe that public mockery by anyone afoot, in an automobile or on a bicycle, in the
UK or most any other nation is wrong, but is still apt to happen from time to time.
I beleive that if I were in England, and somone mocked me, I would thank him for
pointing out to me what the Wankers think.

 

[randooch]

Yes it is very political. The political nature of the ACLU derives from its selection of the rights and liberties to be defended. They do not defend rights that do not appeal to them such as gun ownership rights. It picks and chooses the rights it wishes to defend and is, for that reason, political.

Well, before the bartender decides to enforce the rules, here's some actual information on the ACLU's position on guns and gun ownership.

Gun Control

Updated: 7/8/2008
The Second Amendment provides: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

ACLU POSITION
Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view.

The Supreme Court has now ruled otherwise. In striking down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in D.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether or not associated with a state militia.

The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. We do not, however, take a position on gun control itself. In our view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue.

ANALYSIS
Although ACLU policy cites the Supreme Court's decision in U.S. v. Miller as support for our position on the Second Amendment, our policy was never dependent on Miller. Rather, like all ACLU policies, it reflects the ACLU's own understanding of the Constitution and civil liberties.

Heller takes a different approach than the ACLU has advocated. At the same time, it leaves many unresolved questions, including what firearms are protected by the Second Amendment, what regulations (short of an outright ban) may be upheld, and how that determination will be made.

Those questions will, presumably, be answered over time.

 

[W4ASZ]

I seem to always get a big reaction when wearing a hat, no matter what type of hat it is and no matter what I'm wearing with it. I live in London where people haven't worn hats very much since WWII (I note that even New Yorkers wore fedoras in the 50s). In Britain hats became an expensive luxury during a time of post-war recession and rationing.

It seems that people here feel compelled to comment when someone wears a hat nowadays and I'm interested to know how you respond to the negative feedback. I xas in Oxford the other day wearing my grey homburg and grey 3 piece suit and a 40ish man riding a bicycle stopped and exclaimed "oh my God, what DO you look like?" And then called me a few choice words which I can't use on the Lounge. This happens to me quite often.

Does this happen to anyone else and how do you respond?

Lifted from another thread :

My fantasy version of this picture is that a kid wearing one of those "deep-dish" caps has insulted "Mr. Smith" of "Anytown, U.S.A." and, worse yet, the beloved narrow-ribbon fedora. Mr.Smith, mathematician that he is, has inquired of the young lout if he could estimate, based on his probably limited knowledge of basic arithmetic, "how many times my fist can go into your face ?"

You know the rest. "Mr. Smith" will be played by my fellow Georgian Tom Dean. This film will be shown in high schools nationwide. The working title is Good Manners : Really Good Idea

 

[HatsEnough]

... the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. ...

And they are 100% wrong.

 

[Lefty]

Best of the worst threads on the Lounge I've ever seen. Just like watching a father get hit in the crotch with his son's t-ball bat, this will never get old.

I'm going to read the entire thing again, just to see how we went from one guy's hurt feelings to gun control - without it being the natural, albeit ridiculous progression of hat insult to right to self defense. My thanks goes out to all the usual suspects. Keep up the comedy.

 

[fmw]

Randooch, my point was that the ACLU is political in nature because it picks and chooses the rights it wishes to defend. Gun ownership is only one of them. What the ACLU believes and what the SCOTUS decided is irrelevant. The fact that you appear to side with them is also irrelevant. The ACLU takes a left leaning approach to choosing the rights they defend every single time. Sorry, it is a political organization. It is a very, very politcal organization. I can't imagine how that couldn't be completely obvious to anyone.

 

[fmw]

Sorry, Lefty, but I missed the jokes that made up the comedy.