[ejefz]

Getting banned for calling someone (a high rank politician!!!) a whore is the state of the internet in 2019.

Thing is, he's suggesting Mastodon as an alternative... there you would not only get banned for calling a woman a whore, you'd probably get doxxed and then swatted too.

[nailer]

> Getting banned for calling someone (a high rank politician!!!) a whore

Also calling them a 'cunt'.

Attitudes like the above are why ordinary men and women don't want to become politicians - it's assumed to be OK to insult them in any way. Why not just call Palin a hypocrite?

You should be able to criticise politicians. However if you want better politicians, screaming that they're cunts and whores instead of communicating like an adult won't make that happen.

Edit: replying to below due to rate limit

> If someone cant handle a verbal insult over the internet, I don't think they are fit for office

But it's not 'a verbal insult'. It's thousands. Most humans can't handle a thousand insults a week. It wears at you - SEAL training involves simulating humiliating experiences because most people don't have the mental strength to not crumble. I'd take a bet that includes both me and you.

Edit 2: replying to Iamthirsty

OK. You don't think being constantly insulted would have a chilling effect on someone becoming a representative because ... people can insult people in other professions?

It seems like you believe I think it's hard to work a job where you may be insulted.

This isn't correct. I think it's hard to work a job where you may be insulted a thousand times a day.

[iamthirsty]

‘Ordinary’ men and women don’t want to become politicians for many reasons, but because “it’s assumed to be OK to insult them” isn’t on that list.

You can insult anyone, for any reason—and people do all the time, regardless whether the person is a politician or not, a public figure or not, etc..

Sure, morally it might be unjust to insult a politician, or anyone for that matter. Yet the cool part about the United States is: it’s OK!

Although being a politician, and secondarily a public figure, makes the insults as public as the praises so much so that you, the observer, are more aware of them as a result, doesn’t mean that the same thing wouldn’t happen to anyone else.

[katbyte]

> Yet the cool part about the United States is: it’s OK!

Dude, no, no it’s not ok. It’s not ok to have a culture where insults are encounter and ok. Insults can quickly lead to threats. Are often lies and manipulation. Are often racial or sexist or homophobic. And we as a society shouldn’t just stand by and allow it. What is gained by allowing insults? Honest question. Why should we be ok with them?

Now i do have to say what consistories and insult is not the easiest to define. But calling a politician a “whore” is clearly an baseless insult and a lie that brings nothing to any discussion.

[tortasaur]

If you mean on a legal level, it's less about what is gained by allowing insults than it is what is lost by disallowing them. That is, it becomes trivial to ban criticism by labeling it an insult.

On a social level, there is something to be gained from insults: authenticity. Perhaps it comes down to personal preference, but I would rather live in a society where people can speak their mind (and potentially face social backlash for it) than a society where everything is artificially sanitized. Empathy is great to strive for on a personal level, but forcing the appearance of empathy just leads to strained smiles.

[mrkstu]

Agreed.

My father was the Mayor of a medium sized city and stirred controversy from time to time, and was a favorite target of the local press. He loved it- he took some of the cartoons most designed to poke at him and framed them and put them on the wall in his office.

The give and take is part of the vital breath of democracy- thin skin isn't a useful trait to have in the public square.

He is still beloved by many of the same press on a personal level due to his steady persona and good humor, regardless of the level of agreement with his political views, something sadly missing in the modern political firmament.

[wsy]

It is easy to say this as long as you are not the victim of insults.

[ejefz]

Thank the Lord you can't be jury and victim at the same time.

[iamthirsty]

You summed it up better than even I could. Thanks!

[iamthirsty]

> Dude, no, no it’s not ok.

I don’t think you understood my comment as a whole. Although it may be morally unjust, it is legal, and therefore “OK” to say whatever you want (bar a call-to-action). So, again, while it may be unjust, in the eyes of the law here, it’s OK. You can’t fordably control discourse—that leads to more negatives than positives. :)

[tdxgx]

If someone cant handle a verbal insult over the internet, I don't think they are fit for office

[0xcde4c3db]

I see this attitude a lot in discussions about online harassment. Somehow we're supposed to believe that offensive behavior is a faceless, unaccountable force of nature, but the reactions of its targets are a matter of personal responsibility and character. I don't see how that adds up.

[brokensegue]

Does that justify toxic behavior?

[iamthirsty]

Toxic behavior happens on every level of society and to every occupation. Being a politician doesn’t automatically make toxic behavior towards you—it was always okay towards you! That’s how the world works.

However, when you become a public figure and especially a political one people may feel more entitled to lash out against you, as you literally hold power over their lives, even if they themselves may disagree with you (as in, voted for someone else or the like.)

[brokensegue]

Is that a yes or a no?

[jacquesm]

Absolutely not, but raising yourself above the line of visibility for public office (or in fact, any kind of fame) more or less automatically comes with its share of negatives.

That doesn't justify the toxic behavior at all, it is just a statement about reality. And the rude tweets are the lowest form of that, at the higher levels it turns into physical assault and sometimes even murder attempts and the occasional actual murder.

[jasonlotito]

Doesn't mean Twitter needs to host it. HN has its own guidelines. I can't come here insulting you. So while it's perfectly fine to say someone can say something, Twitter has every right to decide that it won't host it. Suggesting otherwise is, in many ways, censorship. And I wouldn't want an HN that wasn't allowed to moderate its discussion.

[jacquesm]

I'm not suggesting that Twitter needs to host it, on the contrary, I think they're a bit late in their response.

[katbyte]

And that makes it ok? What about threats? Are they also ok?

[johnisgood]

I don't think he is justifying it, it's just that you need to be able to deal with insults in a healthy way. Stoicism comes to mind.

[brokensegue]

But not being able to deal with it isn't what we're discussing.

[johnisgood]

He said:

> If someone cant handle a verbal insult over the internet, I don't think they are fit for office

Then many people immediately jumped on him and made the assumption that he is justifying insults or "toxic behavior". I do not see how this would be the case. Care to explain?

It is not a justification of insults or toxic behavior. He is merely pointing out the fact that if you cannot deal with insults, then this and that. Toxic behavior is, well, toxic, but you have to be able to handle them in a manner that is, say, not self-destructive, while at the same time you being against said toxic behavior.

I agree with him. If you cannot deal with insults thrown at you on the Internet or in real life and it leads to, say, psychological turmoil or whatever, then you should probably do something to alleviate this negative effect insults have on you. This does not justify insults or toxic behaviors. Do you disagree?

[pluma]

I don't think what's keeping "ordinary men and women" from becoming politicians is the toxicity public figures are exposed to, considering a lot of "ordinary men and women" (but particularly women, gender-non-conforming men and PoC, especially if they're trans) get the same or worse on a daily basis on social media.

If you look at the careers and upbringing of most high-ranking politicians, I doubt the most obvious distinction to common folk would be particular thick skin -- heck, the sitting POTUS isn't exactly thick skinned and that's arguably the most publicly exposed office in the world.

Hint: it's wealth. The distinction is coming from wealth and having connections with wealthy people who supply you with funding and influence.

[katbyte]

It’s wealth and maybe being from a race and sex that generally isn’t raked over the coals for simply being black or a women?

White male politicians don’t get much flak for being white or male.

Black women politician would get so much for both her race and gender.

As a women I’d never want to be in the public eye for this reason.

[ejefz]

>White male politicians don’t get much flak for being white or male.

Obviously you've never had an account on Twitter

[nailer]

This is a new account on HN, but the downvotes are surprising, seeing as most people here have indeed used Twitter before.

[luckylion]

> White male politicians don’t get much flak for being white or male.

"Stupid white men" was a huge success a few years back.

[nailer]

Not disputing the sentiment, but if you're referring to Michael Moore's book, the full title is "Stupid White Men ...And Other Sorry Excuses for the State of the Nation!" - ie, he's not being racist or sexist but rather saying that's a very simplistic excuse.