Maine state candidate who called Parkland student 'skinhead lesbian' drops out of race

[ThatRobGuy]

Certainly tasteless and crude, but I am curious to how much people are allowed to criticize these kids, in your opinion. In another thread, we have people who think that giving them a thumbs down is "attacking" them. Where do you draw the line between not being able to do that, and this kind of behavior?

You can certainly criticize them for the content of their "Movement" or their public policy stances.

However, this wasn't addressing either of those.

It was basically a grown adult admitting "I can't beat a 17 year old in a debate, so hey everyone look at how stupid her haircut is and I think she likes girls!"

I bet I can beat her fair & square in an ideological debate about gun policy...I wouldn't have to result to superficial criticism and speculation about her sexual orientation.

I think, for any debate, criticism should be confined to the subject matter at hand. (at least if the person wants to be taken seriously)

 

[ThatRobGuy]

How would a candidate in the State of Maine have constituents in the State of Florida? Well, other than Democrat Gerrymandering that is.

They don't, they were trying to pander to far-right conservatives in their own state.

Also, just as an FYI, Gerrymandering is a problem that's more prevalent among republicans than democrats, by a factor of nearly 4:1. ...but nice try at deflection.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

You know what's always fascinating to me? The sliding scale of "childhood". For example, these 17 and 18 year olds talking on national TV are "children". But if they walk into an abortion clinic at age 14...not children, no way. If they want to change their gender at age 13, not children, no way. In that case, they're definitely old enough to make these life-impacting decisions.

But if they speak in this case, oh yeah. They're "children".

Some have a double-standard on that...true...however, I don't think it's as prevalent as you'd think.

There's a difference between "child" with respect to certain laws & privileges, and with respect to certain individual choices.

For instance, we wouldn't let a 14 year old marry a 40 year old man...however, we wouldn't pass laws that require a 14 year to have a permission slip to order a specific food item from a restaurant if they were eating there with some friends.

Obviously, this an extreme example, but it's simply to highlight the fact that it's not an "all or nothing" thing.

People are legally children until the age of 18, but we do allow teenagers to make some decisions for themselves.

 

[mina]

Her age doesn't really matter in this instance. It doesn't matter if she were 15, 25, 42, or 80. A political candidate attacking the personal life and appearance of a private citizen simply because they disagree with their political stance is not right. He has no one to blame but himself for his failure to secure office. Both the Dem. candidate and the now new Rep. candidate cite that they chose to run because they found his comments inappropriate. Hopefully now the citizens of Maine will have a more decent person in office.

He was running uncontested and would have likely had a personal win and win for his party if he had not decided to tweet petty personal garbage. All he had to do was stick to issues and have self control. Too much to ask , I guess.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Dem. candidate and the now new Rep. candidate cite that they chose to run because they found his comments inappropriate. Hopefully now the citizens of Maine will have a more decent person in office.

I wish it would play out that way for federal-level elections

 

[Zoii]

...you mean Maine?

Oh yeah Maine - Im not from USA so states in and of themselves are not important ot me - they r to u of course

 

[Ana the Ist]

You can certainly criticize them for the content of their "Movement" or their public policy stances.

However, this wasn't addressing either of those.

It was basically a grown adult admitting "I can't beat a 17 year old in a debate, so hey everyone look at how stupid her haircut is and I think she likes girls!"

I bet I can beat her fair & square in an ideological debate about gun policy...I wouldn't have to result to superficial criticism and speculation about her sexual orientation.

I think, for any debate, criticism should be confined to the subject matter at hand. (at least if the person wants to be taken seriously)

It's sad that such superficialities have always been attacking points by those with a political agenda...but it's hardly confined to one side or the other.

I remember when Bernie was running there were those on the left who criticised him for being another old white guy. Here's a lovely example from the Root...(fair warning to anyone who never read a Root article, there's a small amount of foul language...which is par for the course for them)

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.th...idering-to-run-for-president-i-1822560003/amp

For those who steer entirely clear of such language...Here's a former Sanders spokeswoman saying "we don't need white men leading the Democratic party". For some reason, the left and leftist media has zero problem with blatant racism against whites these days...


Former Sanders Spokeswoman: "We Don't Need White People Leading The Democratic Party"


So while what this man said was superficial and wrong...it's awfully hypocritical for the left to make a big deal out of it while they're doing the same thing out the other side of their mouth.

 

[TerranceL]

The real question here is one of the Republican Environment.

You have one instance of a Republican actually ASSAULTING a citizen/reporter and still getting elected into office.

Here you have an instance of a Republican slandering a child victim with an insult that is completely uncalled for...

The real question is what is it about the Republican Environment that enables Republican politicians to do stuff like this?

Remember that republican who drove his car into a creek and left his girlfriend to die while covering his own tail and went on to become a powerhouse in the republican party?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Remember that republican who drove his car into a creek and left his girlfriend to die while covering his own tail and went on to become a powerhouse in the republican party?

I think they're making a movie out of that now. Seems pretty tasteless if you ask me...

 

[TerranceL]

I think they're making a movie out of that now. Seems pretty tasteless if you ask me...

It's very tasteless.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It's very tasteless.

I don't know if that woman has any family alive...but if she does it feels wrong to me to turn such a personal tragedy into entertainment for the masses.

 

[Nithavela]

The real question here is one of the Republican Environment.

You have one instance of a Republican actually ASSAULTING a citizen/reporter and still getting elected into office.

Here you have an instance of a Republican slandering a child victim with an insult that is completely uncalled for...

The real question is what is it about the Republican Environment that enables Republican politicians to do stuff like this?

I think it has to do with the tribalistic nature of US politics. "My party, right or wrong".

 

[Ana the Ist]

The real question here is one of the Republican Environment.

You have one instance of a Republican actually ASSAULTING a citizen/reporter and still getting elected into office.

Here you have an instance of a Republican slandering a child victim with an insult that is completely uncalled for...

The real question is what is it about the Republican Environment that enables Republican politicians to do stuff like this?

It's not as if the democrats are any better.

 

[dgiharris]

It's not as if the democrats are any better.

At this moment in time, yes, yes they are.

and I say this as a moderate, someone who regularly votes for both party candidates.

I have no dog in this fight, I do not drink the kool aid of either. I hate both political parties truth be told...

But if I were to be honest and look at both parties over the course of the last couple of decades...

sorry, the GOP comes out looking way worse than the democrats and it's not even close.

The daily delusions that go on on Right Wing Talk radio and Fox News to make the case that "everything's fine" and all this insanity is normal and that everything bad is just "fake news" is a disservice to all of us...

Things are not fine., The current administration is an embarrassment and in pure chaos...

I never thought I'd ever long for the days of Bush/ Cheney but I now do.

I feel the GOP would rather let this country burn to the ground than admit any wrong doing or mistakes. And that is just insanity.

 

[Ana the Ist]

At this moment in time, yes, yes they are.

and I say this as a moderate, someone who regularly votes for both party candidates.

I have no dog in this fight, I do not drink the kool aid of either. I hate both political parties truth be told...

But if I were to be honest and look at both parties over the course of the last couple of decades...

sorry, the GOP comes out looking way worse than the democrats and it's not even close.

The daily delusions that go on on Right Wing Talk radio and Fox News to make the case that "everything's fine" and all this insanity is normal and that everything bad is just "fake news" is a disservice to all of us...

Things are not fine., The current administration is an embarrassment and in pure chaos...

I never thought I'd ever long for the days of Bush/ Cheney but I now do.

I feel the GOP would rather let this country burn to the ground than admit any wrong doing or mistakes. And that is just insanity.

Have we suddenly shifted topics? I thought this was about dismissing the political views of people based upon superficial criteria...real or imagined (as in the case of the OP).

You seem to want to talk about denial of wrongdoing within the parties themselves.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

It's sad that such superficialities have always been attacking points by those with a political agenda...but it's hardly confined to one side or the other.

I remember when Bernie was running there were those on the left who criticised him for being another old white guy. Here's a lovely example from the Root...(fair warning to anyone who never read a Root article, there's a small amount of foul language...which is par for the course for them)

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.th...idering-to-run-for-president-i-1822560003/amp

For those who steer entirely clear of such language...Here's a former Sanders spokeswoman saying "we don't need white men leading the Democratic party". For some reason, the left and leftist media has zero problem with blatant racism against whites these days...


Former Sanders Spokeswoman: "We Don't Need White People Leading The Democratic Party"


So while what this man said was superficial and wrong...it's awfully hypocritical for the left to make a big deal out of it while they're doing the same thing out the other side of their mouth.

Do you honestly see those as equivalents?

It's one thing to make suggestions that perhaps rich old white guys aren't in tune with a large segment of the democratic voter base (I would say someone's age and gender shouldn't matter, in that regard)...it's another make "skinhead lesbian" comments which were just intended to be pure pejoratives to attack someone they didn't agree with, with absolutely no context pertaining to the subject matter at hand.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Do you honestly see those as equivalents?

The quality of the statements are equivalent. The politician in the OP dismissed a girl's political opinions because of perceived superficialities. The articles I pointed out did the exact same thing.

Did you read the second article?

It's one thing to make suggestions that perhaps rich old white guys aren't in tune with a large segment of the democratic voter base (I would say someone's age and gender shouldn't matter, in that regard)

I'm sure you meant race and wealth in there as well...right?

Besides, the former Sanders spokeswoman didn't just single out rich/old/male politicians. She's quoted as saying...

"we don't need white people leading the Democratic party right now."

And...

"I want to hear from the millennials and the brown folks."

So yeah...basically the exact same thing.

...it's another make "skinhead lesbian" comments which were just intended to be pure pejoratives to attack someone they didn't agree with, with absolutely no context pertaining to the subject matter at hand.

Right...he thought that by calling her a skinhead lesbian, the people who listen to him would dismiss her opinions.

It's exactly the same thing with the Sanders spokeswoman. She's pointing out superficial criteria (That people are white) and saying those people should be dismissed based upon that criteria.

The main difference is that you appear intent on trying to defend one of those bigoted statements.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

It's exactly the same thing with the Sanders spokeswoman. She's pointing out superficial criteria (That people are white) and saying those people should be dismissed based upon that criteria.

The main difference is that you appear intent on trying to defend one of those bigoted statements.

No, that's not it at all...

If you feel that calling someone "A skinhead lesbian" in a gun debate is the ideological & moral equivalent as claiming "rich old white guys are out of tune with issues facing young people and people of color", then we're clearly operating off of two different standards.

As you'll note from my post, I said I didn't agree with it, I wasn't defending it. I just clearly said that one was worse (both ethically, and logically) than the other.

There is a difference between trying to dismiss someone's socioeconomic views in a conversation about socioeconomics with respect to the fact that certain income ranges and races do have distinctly different experiences (again, not claiming I agree with their methodology...just reiterating that so that there's no confusion), and trying to dismiss someone's gun control views by pointing out their hairstyle and perceived orientation based on said hairstyle.

The former was clearly intended to be a statement of "people in his situation aren't going to understand the issues of people in mine", the later was intended be blatantly malicious by calling her names that he knew certain folks in his voter base would have a negative connotation with.

Now, if you're looking for an equivalent, if that person had said "That loudmouthed old Jew doesn't impress me", then you'd have an equivalent scenario.

In a nutshell, "maliciously superficial" is worse than "superficial" (again, not saying I agree with superficiality, just pointing out that form is more unethical than another)

 

[Ana the Ist]

No, that's not it at all...

If you feel that calling someone "A skinhead lesbian" in a gun debate is the ideological & moral equivalent as claiming "rich old white guys are out of tune with issues facing young people and people of color", then we're clearly operating off of two different standards.

Again, that's not what she said. She didn't say "rich old white guys", she didn't say "out of tune" and she didn't say "issues facing young people/people of color."

She said "we don't need white people leading the Democratic party."

Now, I understand that you want to downplay her words...and change them into something a little more palatable. It's easier to look the other way if you can do that. I'm not trying to downplay the words in the OP though...I think they were bigoted and I'm glad he at least had the sense to step down from his race.

As you'll note from my post, I said I didn't agree with it, I wasn't defending it. I just clearly said that one was worse (both ethically, and logically) than the other.

Ok...how so?

There is a difference between trying to dismiss someone's socioeconomic views in a conversation about socioeconomics with respect to the fact that certain income ranges and races do have distinctly different experiences (again, not claiming I agree with their methodology...just reiterating that so that there's no confusion), and trying to dismiss someone's gun control views by pointing out their hairstyle and perceived orientation based on said hairstyle.

I agree...but that's not her statement. She said she doesn't think a white person should be in charge of the party because the party is "diverse"...which is really just thinly veiled racism. I mean, there's white people in the party as well...so there's no reason to even think that one race could represent it better than any other.

The former was clearly intended to be a statement of "people in his situation aren't going to understand the issues of people in mine", the later was intended be blatantly malicious by calling her names that he knew certain folks in his voter base would have a negative connotation with.

Really? I took it as an attack on her ability to understand gun owners and 2nd amendment rights...by painting her as the kind of person typically opposed to those things.

Now, if you're looking for an equivalent, if that person had said "That loudmouthed old Jew doesn't impress me", then you'd have an equivalent scenario.

Actually, for an equivalent statement...the politician in the OP would've needed to say, "I don't think blacks should be in charge of the Republican party...because we have white people in the party". His actual statement was just disparaging a young girl to get people to dismiss her opinion...the example I gave is far worse than that.

In a nutshell, "maliciously superficial" is worse than "superficial" (again, not saying I agree with superficiality, just pointing out that form is more unethical than another)

I think dismissing and "otherizing" an entire race is worse than dismissing and otherizing one girl.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Again, that's not what she said. She didn't say "rich old white guys", she didn't say "out of tune" and she didn't say "issues facing young people/people of color."

She said "we don't need white people leading the Democratic party."

Context is everything here...

If she truly had some sort of anti-white bias, would she have worked for Bernie? Highly unlikely.

She was replying to a discussion point that was talking about Howard Dean potentially returning to the fold, in which she also said:

"Howard Dean is on record maligning young people and millennials, telling those Bernie folks they just need to get in line, and maligning Bernie Sanders," Sanders said. "And that is not what we need right now."

"The Democratic Party is diverse, and it should be reflected as so in our leadership and throughout the staff at the highest levels from the vice chairs to the secretaries all the way down to the people working in the offices at the DNC," Sanders added.


Again, not saying that I agree with what she said, but when you put her statements in context (and include her full statement), it wasn't just a mindless anti-white jab. It was certainly not a good thing for her to say, but it wasn't the same level of malicious intent as calling a 17 year old girl a "skinhead lesbian" to try to win brownie points from an anti-gay voter base.

Now, I understand that you want to downplay her words...and change them into something a little more palatable. It's easier to look the other way if you can do that. I'm not trying to downplay the words in the OP though...I think they were bigoted and I'm glad he at least had the sense to step down from his race.

I'm not downplaying her words, I'm just giving them context based on what she said in the same conversation.

No such additional context exists for his statements about Emma Gonzales.

Really? I took it as an attack on her ability to understand gun owners and 2nd amendment rights...by painting her as the kind of person typically opposed to those things.

Do people with short hair typically oppose guns? Hmmm...I have short hair and I own 17 of them. Studies would indicate that gun ownership and concealed carry permit rates among LGBT women are on the rise, so I doubt he'd be making any sort of reference to a connection between orientation and gun ownership.

I think dismissing and "otherizing" an entire race is worse than dismissing and otherizing one girl.

Again, not dismissing or "otherizing" anything (not sure why you seem to be so dead set on catching me in a contradiction here).

Simply pointing out that her comments (plus the added context by looking at the rest of her statement) would indicate that her statements, at worst, were ignorant, but not malicious and pertained to the subject matter at hand. The same can not be said of his statements which was just a blatant cheap shot aimed at scoring brownie points with people who hate LGBT.