[mfringel]

Your elected officials own the messaging on your political brand. You don't actually get a choice on this one.

If I have to get a read on someone before I directly interact with them, their wearing of a MAGA hat will give me a bunch of useful going-in assumptions, just like any other political insignia worn as clothing.

[BeetleB]

>If I have to get a read on someone before I directly interact with them, their wearing of a MAGA hat will give me a bunch of useful going-in assumptions, just like any other political insignia worn as clothing.

Where we disagree is this:

1. You don't have to get a read on someone before interacting with them. That path is the path to stereotyping.

2. We disagree on whether those going-in assumptions are useful.

[mfringel]

There are plenty of professions where someone has to "read a room/person/situation" before having a chance to interact with people. As an example, many types of consulting require someone to "take the pulse of a room" before directly interacting with any one person. To be sure, there's a price for being wrong, but there's also a reward for being right.

[creaghpatr]

That’s textbook bigotry, and you recognize it yourself as you gleefully assert “You don’t actually get a choice”

The burden is on you to “give him a choice”

[mfringel]

I disagree with you.

If someone is wearing a Boston Bruins jersey in public, I think it's reasonable to believe that they're a fan of the Boston Bruins hockey team. I _could_ ask them if that's the case, or if they're a New York Rangers fan that's wearing it ironically, but that would (probably) be wasted effort, because I have a good idea of the answer I'm going to get.

It seems reasonably straightforward to apply that to other team insignia, especially one that is so clearly affiliated with a specific political leader, and their political outlook.