By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The article details the fallout from the revelation of racist and sexist text messages exchanged by leaders of the Young Republicans. J.D. Vance downplayed the severity of the messages, describing them as “youthful indiscretions” and suggesting the participants were much younger than they are. The messages prompted bipartisan calls for resignations and condemnations, with some Republicans and Democrats expressing outrage and demanding consequences. Vance focused on what he perceived as a distraction from offensive comments made by a Democratic candidate.
Read the original article here
JD Vance brushes off racist texts by adults in Republican group chat as ‘what kids do’, and it’s quite a statement, isn’t it? It’s like he’s saying, “Oh, you know, just kids being kids.” But hold on a second. We’re talking about grown adults here, people in their twenties and thirties. They’re not exactly fresh out of high school.
The core of the issue boils down to this: what kind of behavior is being excused, and who is doing the excusing? Condemning hateful, racist rhetoric is what reasonable adults do. But defending it, brushing it off as youthful indiscretion, is a completely different story. It raises questions about values, priorities, and what is considered acceptable in certain circles.
It’s hard not to see a pattern here. This isn’t an isolated incident. There’s a persistent thread of attempting to normalize things that should be, and usually are, considered beyond the pale. We’re talking about texts filled with racist comments, joking about violence, and even glorifying figures like Hitler. These aren’t just silly pranks; they’re expressions of deeply troubling beliefs.
The excuse of “boys will be boys” falls flat when it involves people who are old enough to know better. This is not about youthful experimentation; it’s about the explicit and conscious expression of hateful ideologies.
The article highlights the absurdity of the situation. Some are middle-aged adults, some have expressed open admiration for Hitler, and some have made light of rape. You’d think that any sensible person, regardless of their political affiliation, would see a problem here.
The article takes issue with the idea that those actions should be swept aside with an airy wave of the hand. It points out the hypocrisy of this stance. It’s a way of saying, “This is what grown-ups do.”
Furthermore, the focus on the age range is important. The people involved aren’t teenagers. They’re adults, responsible for their words and actions. It’s not the same as a schoolyard squabble.
The article goes on to question the maturity level of the individuals involved. A more accurate portrayal of their behavior would be, perhaps, a bunch of petulant children. It also subtly notes the potential hypocrisy of being quick to condemn those on the left while offering a free pass to those on the right.
The article points out how the term “kid” is, at times, strangely flexible. It’s a term that gets used selectively, and the implication is that this flexibility is politically motivated.
Moreover, the article lists some of the specific offensive content within the group chat. These are not minor transgressions; they represent a disturbing level of hate speech and calls for violence.
It’s clear that this is a case of minimizing serious offenses, and the article calls out this behavior.
The implication is clear: the individuals involved are adults, and they should be held accountable for their words. The article seems to suggest that the normalization of such behaviors is a larger problem.
It emphasizes that if these individuals were actually children, there might be a need for leniency. But they are not children, they are adults. The use of the word “kid” in this context is, at best, a deflection, and at worst, an attempt to excuse inexcusable behavior.
The article’s argument is straightforward: These aren’t just kids; they are adults who should be held accountable. And the fact that this is not happening speaks volumes.