351
submitted 4 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

JD Vance, no fan of gender-neutral bathrooms, was photographed in his high school yearbook next to three girls posing in front of urinals in a bathroom during his senior year.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] TheAlbatross@lemmy.blahaj.zone 169 points 4 months ago

I'm no fan of Vance, but I'm really struggling to see why this photo matters.

[-] EmpathicVagrant@lemmy.world 78 points 4 months ago

His hypocrisy between what he’s done and what he says.

[-] Thatuserguy@lemmy.world 76 points 4 months ago

I dunno man, downvote me or whatever, but this really feels like it's reaching? This is literally just him fucking around as a kid in high school. Who cares?

He's a piece of shit no doubt, but hate him for the stupid shit he's saying and doing now and recently. Not for some random photo of him from over 20 years ago.

[-] dohpaz42@lemmy.world 29 points 4 months ago

For what it’s worth, I have to agree with you. I guess people forget that kids do stupid shit in high school, and this photo isn’t really that stupid. Now if this was a photo of Vance organizing a right-wing group in high school, that might be noteworthy.

[-] davidagain@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago

Under his proposed law, these girls would be guilty of a crime and would be sex offenders for using a bathroom that doesn't match their birth sex. The fact that it's in a school makes it "worse".

You might say that's unreasonable, but the unreasonable thing is the law, not the kids.

[-] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

I don't know what these psychopaths have to do before people like this (not you if that wasn't clear) listen to what they're saying. It's unbelievable. Vance openly supports legislation that would literally make these girls criminals, period.

They're telling us who they are, and exactly what they will do. Please listen.

[-] dohpaz42@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

Under his proposed law, these girls would be guilty of a crime and would be sex offenders for using a bathroom that doesn't match their birth sex. The fact that it's in a school makes it "worse".

Yes, he’s a hypocritical misogynist, and he’s obviously an opportunist who will do and say whatever it takes to appeal to his base — even if it means throwing his wife under the bus with blatant racism. You’ll get no argument from me about that. But this photo is not the smoking gun everyone seems to be making it out to be. There is nothing revolutionary about it at all. It’s not even his photo. He just happens to be in it.

You might say that's unreasonable, but the unreasonable thing is the law, not the kids.

Get upset for the right reasons. This photo isn’t one of them.

[-] Jax@sh.itjust.works 6 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

So it's fine for teenage girls to go into the boys bathroom because "teens will be teens" but it isn't ok for trans boys to go to boys bathrooms because... why, exactly?

Like how are you not seeing the blatant hypocrisy between this action and the rhetoric he spews?

[-] dohpaz42@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

So it's fine for teenage girls to go into the boys bathroom because "teens will be teens" but it isn't ok for trans boys to go to boys bathrooms because... why, exactly?

You’re making a lot of assumptions here; correlation does not mean causation. You don’t know of the circumstances behind the photo. You only know that there are girls in a men’s bathroom and Vance happens to be in the photo.

I never said in any way shape or form that it wasn’t okay for transgender people to use their respective bathrooms. I sure as Hell have never defended Vance’s stances. But if you want to go putting words in my mouth because it fits your narrative, you go right ahead. But know this if you do: that makes you no better than them.

Like how are you not seeing the blatant hypocrisy between this action and the rhetoric he spews?

Honestly, if you want to rip on Vance for the things he’s done, it’s probably wise to choose more relevant situations to criticize him for; not some picture from high school that he was a part of simply because the student body president (not him) wanted to make a joke about the patriarchy of the time.

[-] Jax@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 months ago

I'm making assumptions? I'm putting words in your mouth when the only thing I've done is criticize JD Vance?

Good god, sea lions are fucking exhausting. Very weird.

[-] tiredofsametab@fedia.io 22 points 4 months ago

I went from super conservative evangelical, even harder right than my parents in many ways, in high school, very nearly got pulled into even further right stuff in young adulthood, and now am basically the opposite of all of that. Had facebook been a thing when I was that age, who knows what nonsense I would have been spouting or doing.

I despise Vance and all the he and his ilk stand for, but I agree this just doesn't feel right to me.

[-] Moops@lemmy.world 20 points 4 months ago

Yeah this is a reach. He's a big enough turd we really don't need to stretch this much.

[-] brbposting@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 months ago

Back to the couch people!

[-] Spot@startrek.website 6 points 4 months ago

I'm thinking, if you got to have fun, minding your own business... not hurting anyone; No matter how much you may have grown or changed and no longer like or approve of doing those activities, you don't get to be part of a brigade that strips the rights from people who DO choose to and again, aren't hurting anyone. You don't get to incite violence against people who are Minding Their Own Fucking Business without the bare minimum of getting exposed for being a fucking hypocritical piece of shit.

[-] Thatuserguy@lemmy.world 9 points 4 months ago

Again, he's a piece of shit and deserves to be called out for it. But like, this is the equivalent of putting out a hit piece about how he didn't share his juice box in elementary school, showing that he's always been against social welfare programs. Like, what?

Even if that is true, I'm not the same person with the same views as I was in high school, and I imagine most aren't. You're not a hypocrite for that; you just grew up. Unfortunately he grew up in the wrong direction, but I think holding people to things they did and believed in a completely different stage of their life is wrong.

Judge people for who they are here and now. There are FAR more consequential and important things that energy is better spent attacking him on than a joke picture in a yearbook from 22 years ago.

[-] Spot@startrek.website 4 points 4 months ago

Sure, but he's unwilling to let others grow and make their own choices in their time. Just because you don't do something anymore is no reason to ban everyone else from doing it now, let alone criminalize it. He got to be curious and explore who he is, he should be letting others do the same. Exposing this stuff helps show what he is taking away from others even though it was OK when he did it.

load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments (53 replies)
this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2024
351 points (86.2% liked)

politics

19241 readers
1679 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS