But if you go by that standard, that means entire generations will be restricted from running for public office because of cringe shit they posted when they were kids and teens, and I would argue in their early 20s.
That reduces your candidate pool by a lot, which excludes a lot of otherwise talented people.
What’s left in the candidate pool is the few who didn’t engage in social media, and sociopaths and other abnormals who always posted the socially acceptable things.
You’re speaking like this precludes anybody who has ever posted something “cringe” from running, but there’s a world of difference between someone who, 15 years ago, posted something embarrassing that they have had time and distance from, and this kid who is still a teenager who appears to have posted “Hitler “may have not intended death” during the Holocaust, and that “lots of Jews died” not because Hitler “hated them specifically” but because there were so many of them.”
He was removed by his own party, immediately, which also tells me that it’s likely that these were both fairly recent posts, and that they were creditably attributed to this candidate.
Sorry but a recent history of Holocaust denial, even if it’s just an edgelord kid being an edgelord kid, is absolutely a valid reason for the party to revoke his candidacy. It doesn’t preclude him from running, he just does not have the party endorsement or resources of the CPBC.
In this particular case, yes, the former-candidate is still a teenager and therefore not distanced at all from the postings in question.
But I was making a larger argument about how people of a younger age now have all of their immature words in writings and video recorded by social media in perpetuity, which can be used against them later in life.
And it may impair them not just from seeking political office, but also job applications, promotions etc.
You never know how these things are going to pop up on a background search or investigation.
Even moreso that AI has been fed everything that has ever been posted online.
I could imagine all one has to do is ask a chatbot, “Has Joe Candidate ever posted anything (insert controversial buzzwords here)?” and this kind of thing could be dredged up.
“Conservative teenager makes offensive Holocaust and Hitler remarks”
How shocking.
To be fair, teenagers of all persuasions say a lot of cringe stuff.
I know that I certainly did.
But social media wasn’t around to capture it all forever.
The rules are different when you run for office.
But if you go by that standard, that means entire generations will be restricted from running for public office because of cringe shit they posted when they were kids and teens, and I would argue in their early 20s.
That reduces your candidate pool by a lot, which excludes a lot of otherwise talented people.
What’s left in the candidate pool is the few who didn’t engage in social media, and sociopaths and other abnormals who always posted the socially acceptable things.
You’re speaking like this precludes anybody who has ever posted something “cringe” from running, but there’s a world of difference between someone who, 15 years ago, posted something embarrassing that they have had time and distance from, and this kid who is still a teenager who appears to have posted “Hitler “may have not intended death” during the Holocaust, and that “lots of Jews died” not because Hitler “hated them specifically” but because there were so many of them.”
He was removed by his own party, immediately, which also tells me that it’s likely that these were both fairly recent posts, and that they were creditably attributed to this candidate.
Sorry but a recent history of Holocaust denial, even if it’s just an edgelord kid being an edgelord kid, is absolutely a valid reason for the party to revoke his candidacy. It doesn’t preclude him from running, he just does not have the party endorsement or resources of the CPBC.
In this particular case, yes, the former-candidate is still a teenager and therefore not distanced at all from the postings in question.
But I was making a larger argument about how people of a younger age now have all of their immature words in writings and video recorded by social media in perpetuity, which can be used against them later in life.
And it may impair them not just from seeking political office, but also job applications, promotions etc.
You never know how these things are going to pop up on a background search or investigation.
Even moreso that AI has been fed everything that has ever been posted online.
I could imagine all one has to do is ask a chatbot, “Has Joe Candidate ever posted anything (insert controversial buzzwords here)?” and this kind of thing could be dredged up.