I want to talk about flag and gun guy for a minute.

On some level, he thinks he’s helping, and I thinks it’s an interesting display of the base assumptions he and people like him have about themselves, and society in general.

When I say—and I do, often—that there are people that view themselves as axiomatically the “good guy”…well, this is what it looks like. He’s not thinking about how he’s a stranger relative to the people passing by him, or in the school (though an hour later, I doubt the kids are about), or seeing him on social media next to the school as they worry about their kids who go to that school.

The presumption is that he can’t be “read” by other people as anything but being helpful, that he can’t be perceived as a threat. This is a thing we see over and over again, built into NRA at the bottom floor.

Notice I’m not taking the piss out of this man’s choices. This is not the time for smugness and mockery. This is serious; this is a metonym for a style of thinking we have to attend to.

Why is his base assumption he would be read as “safe” even though he is an armed stranger?

Well, I think the answer is the way he’s got a MAGA hat and a flag…and I don’t mean that as some kind of political shit talk. To him, the gun, flag, and hat are a set. They signify, and that other people don’t read them as symbols in the same way just isn’t something that registers.

This is entirely in line with what’s unhealthy about US gun culture; it’s not the ownership by itself, the expanded narrative of what it means to carry a firearm and what it means to object to people carrying a firearm. This man is trying to do something good, but he’s demanding that the people he’s helping accept his presumptions, most especially the idea that his intentions can’t be doubted.

And I think this is important, because it goes back to my ongoing observation that this is about things beyond ideology, into the realm of epistemology.

To this man, his symbol set is True. The gun and the flag and the hat means he’s one of the good guys. That someone might not see those signifiers the same way isn’t a valid option. It’s either a sign of stupidity or malice.

What unifies the reactionaries collaborating right now is the way that in different facets they have the same relationship to ideas: whatever they feel the meaning is, that is the true meaning, and other perceptions are invalid. This is present in their approach to science, exegesis, social critique, et cetera.

And furthermore—and this is where shit gets important and kind of scary—it is their right to modify and contextualize meaning such that nothing is generalizable (in the Categorical Imperative sense). Distinction based on affiliation is superordinate to universal principles, and external displays of affiliation are how that discernment is made.

The presumption of this man, and people like him, that they “read” as safe, would not be extended to people who do not perform identity the same way.

What seems to be hypocrisy is actually a consistency using a different criteria set. One that we should all worry about, because it’s essentially tribal, but also because it’s hack-able. Symbol-value and performance of identity are exploitable, which is why scams generally start by leveraging an existing affiliation or setting up a new system of affiliation bonds (complete with new signifiers…think about how MLM setups create an appealing internal culture, replete with praise and rewards and little rituals…that’s what I’m getting at).

And I hate to say this, but…this is how otherwise good people suddenly get caught up in putting heads on pikes. You can retain the shallow markers—the signifiers—while deforming the values and deep meanings—the signified—and people will go along with it. Immoral things become moral by changing fixed principles while denying they’ve changed. And at some point, that makes cruelty an option, as you “define” people as outside of norms such that they deserve empathy or recognition as fellow people.