Congresswoman’s spokesman: Hurl some acid at female Democrat

[Sisyphus]

Democratic candidate Richard Becker on Thursday blasted comments made by Rep. Nan Hayworth’s (R-NY) official campaign spokesman.

On a Facebook discussion board maintained by local Democratic activists, Jay Townsend mockingly suggested throwing acid on female Senators who supported the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act but paid their male staffers more than their female staffers.

Source: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/05/31/congresswomans-spokesman-hurl-some-acid-at-female-democratic-senators/

[owleye]

Though I think the language was a bit strong and while I find myself at the polar opposite of his politics, I don't think it necessary to believe he was advocating the literal meaning of what he says. As such, I interpreted what he was saying as giving their opponents the same treatment as what was thrown at them. I will concede that the language used is unbecoming for an officeholder, at least in public, and so their spokesperson should abide by this, but in the scheme of things, I don't think we should be in a tizzy over this one.

James

[Watson]

Not picking a side, but it would be nice if politicians in general would behave in the same manner as they should likely expect their children to behave. If they already do, then they have some awefully bratty kids.

[mtbturtle]

At what point should we be in a tizzy? another Gabby Giffords?

[anc0de]

Though I think the language was a bit strong and while I find myself at the polar opposite of his politics, I don't think it necessary to believe he was advocating the literal meaning of what he says. As such, I interpreted what he was saying as giving their opponents the same treatment as what was thrown at them. I will concede that the language used is unbecoming for an officeholder, at least in public, and so their spokesperson should abide by this, but in the scheme of things, I don't think we should be in a tizzy over this one.

James

Since when did sexist or misogynistic jokes become a norm? Whether literal or not it is highly unprofessional, vulgar, and tasteless.

[owleye]

At what point should we be in a tizzy? another Gabby Giffords?

Don't know what point. However, if the speaker were giving a public speech, say on the floor of Congress, or in some stump speech, or if it was some radio talk show host who frequently stirs the pot with such remarks, or if the speaker was making this sort of response to a larger audience, say in response to some show host question on the radio or TV, I'd say the line was crossed. While it's true that the press has ears and eyes everywhere and wants to be the first to relay some off-hand remark that probably wasn't intended for a larger audience, I'm not one to press the issue merely on that basis.

On the other hand, if there is evidence that this speaker, in speaking to a certain audience, wants to rile them up in such a way that they would take the words literally, and take action on their own that is consistent with that message being heard, even as it is executed in a kind of wink and nod way, then I'd say they've gone too far. I would say preachers who sermonize in this way go too far. The same goes for back-room out of public scrutiny speech incitement. Certain words are loaded and convey meaning to their intended audience that is unequivocal to them, though there is a certain deniability when it is made public. That's obviously the idea behind this kind of speech. I'm not aware that the acid comment has any particular subtext to it that can be considered loaded.

Nonetheless, I'm willing to give this one incident a pass, especially if it's not part of a pattern and there's a sense in which the person indicated his speech wasn't intended to be taken literally. (If you know more about it, I'd be willing to change my mind.)

James

[cyanobacteria]

Violent rhetoric, war analogies, 'jokes' about minority and/or marginalized groups, and raw misogynism has become the norm. This is unacceptable and should not be tolerated. I don't think condemning this constitutes a 'tizzy'. It's important to improve the terms of discussion in this age. We've become too accepting of smear campaigns and the things I included in my list at the start of this post. Once upon a time, calling someone a 'liar' was serious business and it shocked people and turned off voters. Now, we seem to be desensitized to this, or too afraid of looking overly-PC. It's too bad that this is how things stand nowadays. Using ideas like dumping acid on Democratic women reps is disturbing -- for several reasons. It's too bad there isn't more collective outrage over things like this.

[mtbturtle]

owleye,

How many people are on facebook? You can view his public comments as being in front of a way larger audience than you'll fit into any high school gym or lecture hall and potentially than Rush Limbaugh on the radio.

Did you read the article? It explained what the loaded images of acid throwing is.

Shooting doctors, bombing clinics, curb stomping women and gunning down Representative of Congress and her supporters, waving around guns to "rallies"...tis a luxury or abdication of responsibility indeed in such an environment to keep giving a pass to this rhetoric.

But gosh darn I wouldn't want to get myself worked up into a TIZZY! ::rolls eyes::

[owleye]

Though I think the language was a bit strong and while I find myself at the polar opposite of his politics, I don't think it necessary to believe he was advocating the literal meaning of what he says. As such, I interpreted what he was saying as giving their opponents the same treatment as what was thrown at them. I will concede that the language used is unbecoming for an officeholder, at least in public, and so their spokesperson should abide by this, but in the scheme of things, I don't think we should be in a tizzy over this one.

James

Since when did sexist or misogynistic jokes become a norm? Whether literal or not it is highly unprofessional, vulgar, and tasteless.

Since forever, I think. Perhaps you are being too sensitive? In any case, you might review my more considered response to mtbturtle and make another response.

Note that the summary cited by Sisyphus is the reporter's summary of what transpired and, in my view, doesn't capture what actually transpired. I'd actually read the article before I came on this board and while the language used was way over the top, the context of the comments clearly represented a typical campaign response to a certain turn of events in the campaign. To be sure, with respect to the issue being taken up by the campaign, I wouldn't be on their side of it. But I can separate out that from the particular language being used. I won't condone the language, but I'd tolerate it. Perhaps you are unable to do make that separation, and wish to make certain speech that offends women off-limits. You may be able to do that over time through protest, however, I'm not sure this is the significant factor of the issue that divides the campaign. Even with more appropriate motivating language (omitting the acid part, for example, though this is what they felt their opponents were throwing at them), I'd want to undermine their position on the issue by tackling it head on, rather than on the language used by them.

James

[owleye]

owleye,

How many people are on facebook? You can view his public comments as being in front of a way larger audience than you'll fit into any high school gym or lecture hall and potentially than Rush Limbaugh on the radio.

I'm afraid I don't know much about Facebook. I understood the context of the statement to be such as to make it directed to the campaign. If, however, it was intended to be publicized in a larger context, then I retract what I'm saying. On the other hand, if in fact Facebook isn't private and they were unaware of it, then I suppose they made a huge mistake, one that I can only imagine will harm their campaign.

Did you read the article? It explained what the loaded images of acid throwing is.

Yes, as mentioned in my comments to An0de, I'd read it before I came to the board, and understood it as a the campaign spokesman making a motivating response in the light of recent events in the campaign. Yes, the language is offensive, but I think the bigger issue is the campaign issue, not the language being used by the spokesman. The reporter, in analogizing it to certain practices in Syria is elevating the issue beyond what actually transpired.

Shooting doctors, bombing clinics, curb stomping women and gunning down Representative of Congress and her supporters, waving around guns to "rallies"...tis a luxury or abdication of responsibility indeed in such an environment to keep giving a pass to this rhetoric.

Because I tolerated this particular speech places me on the side of shooting doctors, bombing clinics and so forth? Well, I'm sorry, but I won't be put in that position. Please provide me with some evidence that the intended audience of the speaker, given the context, understood the message to mean that not only were their opponents literally throwing acid at them, but that he was advocating that they return the acid in kind.

Obviously, because it has now been made public, and given this particular reporters slant on things, it is not surprising that we are now "in a tizzy over it". That's the whole point of drawing attention to it, and I suspect the reporter is being congratulated for making it go viral, so to speak. Within the Facebook world, I suppose there is also a huge reaction to it. I have no idea. For me, though, I don't want to be drawn in to a discussion of important issues because of the way particular events are portrayed by the media.

James

[Sisyphus]

If we tolerate this sort of thing, it will just keep getting worse. Here's a petition...

http://act.weareultraviolet.org/sign/townsend?referring_akid=.363575.Sd4_y7&source=facebook

[anc0de]

Since forever, I think. Perhaps you are being too sensitive? In any case, you might review my more considered response to mtbturtle and make another response.

Note that the summary cited by Sisyphus is the reporter's summary of what transpired and, in my view, doesn't capture what actually transpired. I'd actually read the article before I came on this board and while the language used was way over the top, the context of the comments clearly represented a typical campaign response to a certain turn of events in the campaign. To be sure, with respect to the issue being taken up by the campaign, I wouldn't be on their side of it. But I can separate out that from the particular language being used. I won't condone the language, but I'd tolerate it. Perhaps you are unable to do make that separation, and wish to make certain speech that offends women off-limits. You may be able to do that over time through protest, however, I'm not sure this is the significant factor of the issue that divides the campaign. Even with more appropriate motivating language (omitting the acid part, for example, though this is what they felt their opponents were throwing at them), I'd want to undermine their position on the issue by tackling it head on, rather than on the language used by them.

James

I did read the entire article and also the article covered by Yahoo News yesterday. I'm all for free speech, but the comments made by the spokesperson were, in my opinion, extremely over the top and outright unprofessional. Most people in his position would've been fired - immediately. Other people on radio or television have been fired from their career positions for far less offensive slips. Also, I am not saying that we should outright do away from particular speech, but rather be professional and . The spokesperson, Jay Townsend, is working for a US representative, he is not just some regular sap with a personal opinion, and with that position should come a certain degree of professionalism and caution with words - time and place. Lastly, I think it serves to keep in mind that the women are the predominant victims of caustic attacks particularly on eastern hemisphere, such speech might fall on some lunatics ears - you don't want to make it into a snowball factor where people get the idea.

I'm not aware that the acid comment has any particular subtext to it that can be considered loaded.

I think I can agree that what was said is not inherently fallacious. However, it can be easily construed as hateful violent rhetoric.
From what I understand neither the spokesperson nor representative's Hayworth's office issued a comment or an apology on the matter.

[mtbturtle]

owleye,

Oh capable perhaps but willing? It is not a matter of restricting free speech. It is a matter of being accountable for what is said. You may view such comments in isolation and decide to "tolerate" them but I don't see why the rest of us should or how objecting to such comments makes us intolerant or anti-free speech in the least. My comments and others I think make it obvious there is a bigger picture here and how this language is used, the deterioration of our discourse and violence it lays the groundwork for.

I suggest you read the article again. You seemed confused about who said what where and to whom.

Official campaign spokesman making ANY comment on facebook is public - publicized to close to a billion users. It's not like he said it to a buddy over a beer at a bar.

[owleye]

owleye,

Oh capable perhaps but willing? It is not a matter of restricting free speech. It is a matter of being accountable for what is said. You may view such comments in isolation and decide to "tolerate" them but I don't see why the rest of us should or how objecting to such comments makes us intolerant or anti-free speech in the least. My comments and others I think make it obvious there is a bigger picture here and how this language is used, the deterioration of our discourse and violence it lays the groundwork for.

I suggest you read the article again. You seemed confused about who said what where and to whom.

Official campaign spokesman making ANY comment on facebook is public - publicized to close to a billion users. It's not like he said it to a buddy over a beer at a bar.

Ok. Here's the picture of the situation I arrived at from reading the article. Tbe reporter saw an opportunity to run with a story that would reflect badly on a spokesman for a member of Congress and do harm to it by painting a picture of the spokesman making it sound as if feminists should have acid thrown at them. In reading the story, however, I couldn't find sufficient evidence to warrant that picture. The context of the speech seemed to me to strictly within the campaign itself. One can imagine that there are two campaigns that are being waged against each other, and we are listening in on how one side thinks of the other's tactics. As such, I'm thinking the reporter, probably favoring the other side, chose this particular way of helping defeat their opponents. I wouldn't put it into the James O'Keefe category without more evidence, nor would I expect the portrayal to be disinterested either, without more evidence.

I'll concede the point about Facebook as I don't really understand its workings. It's possible that the campaigners have been drinking too much of their own koolaid, listening only to their cheerleaders on talk radio, or other media outlets, not all that aware that some of their language is being judged by a much wider audience. In that case the reporter may be doing a service by projecting that language onto this wider audience. However, before I come to this conclusion, I'd have to hear more about this spokesman, especially respecting the use of acid. Is he amplifying a meme, or was it just a one-off?

Let me tell you about an experience I had that I cherish for its importance, despite or because of how it tells me something about both me and about life in general. It has a bearing on this discussion, I think.

A number of years ago there was a tragic death of our first grand-daughter at the hands of their step-father, one that has remained a signal event in our lives and will remain so for the rest of it. Our close family and friends gathered together not long after that and spent quite a bit of time together doing what was felt to be necessary on that occasion. Everyone understood the gravity of the situation. As the gathering went on for awhile, the emotions took various turns, and many, including even me, found ourselves at times laughing and enjoying the moment we had with each other. When the phone rang (the gathering was at our house), I took the call while in this joyful mood, and couldn't determine who it was that was calling, she speaking in rather a low voice. In the mood I was in where I was trying to be get her to reveal her identity, I realized who it was. It was a close friend of ours from far away who was calling to express her condolences. I was totally devastated and embarrassed that I had been expressing myself to her in a way that signaled that I was having a good time over something that I should be grieving over in a solemn manner, a manner that she herself was expressing. I did my best to recover from it and talked to her for some time, but it left a mark that I don't wish to let go of.

I realize that this is not a good analogy. Analogies are never perfect anyway. However, what it has meant for me is that I don't judge people based on one-off remarks that otherwise offend me. Moreover, if I get to know the person and find this sort of "colorful" language the norm but that it doesn't go beyond that, it may become an endearing characteristic. How awful of me, I know. However, friendships are like that.

Nonetheless, I do understand the difference between public speech and private speech. Perhaps I don't understand Facebook speech, or even speech on this board, possibly thinking that Facebook is more like private speech than public, while on this board, it is more public than private. For my own purpose I'd say there's a distinction between strangers and people we know. Unless there is some encroachment by the public into an area that is assumed to be private, any communication to a stranger probably should be considered public, and in the present case, I think there is evidence of this in the response by the spokesman to a stranger on Facebook. His language in that case should be toned down. His arrogance probably got the better of him.

In so far as he should be held accountable for this, my thinking is that the reporter drew the balance sheet too far to one side. It wasn't balanced in my view. As for how the spokesman recovers from this embarrassing language, assuming that it did embarrass him, it will be difficult defend in the face of the "billions" who may have heard it, just as it would be difficult if not impossible to defend my being in a joyful spirit when I should be mournful. But life is like that at times. How much of a "federal case" do you want to make of it. Should we smear this guy? Tell me something about this guy that deserves the treatment he has been given.

James

[mtbturtle]

owleye,

Any spokesperson for any campaign that pops off on Facebook deserves to be held responsible in the same manner as if they were speaking to a reporter or the folks on the campaign trail. If they do not understand that, they should be fired for incompetence. What this spokesman did was equivalent to walking into the Democratic headquarters and start calling them a bunch of dirty names. It is not a judgment of this spokesperson personally, and I don't care if it's a "one off" or not. It is completely unacceptable and for which as of yet I have not even seen an apology for such violent language.

I've no idea what treatment you think he's receiving that he doesn't deserve seeing as how he's an official spokesman.

I wonder if he had made a crack about lynching blacks if it would still be don't get in such a "tizzy"...

[owleye]

owleye,

I've no idea what treatment you think he's receiving that he doesn't deserve seeing as how he's an official spokesman.

I wonder if he had made a crack about lynching blacks if it would still be don't get in such a "tizzy"...

Well, the rule I've adopted is to think of people, regardless of their position, first as human beings deserving of respect, and only then, the responsibilities they have. If at some point I don't think they deserve that respect or if they don't measure up to their responsibilities, then, yes, I'll take notice of this. But, I only reluctantly give up on people. By taking this public in the way it has, where it's become fodder for many, though not all news outlets; it turns this person into a kind of evil caricature, one that leaves the real person behind, and he will have to contend with this until such time as he is out of the public limelight. It may or may not be the end of him, I can't say, but I find this method of conducting the news these days repellant. It's like rule by mob. Much of the hatred involved with Obama is of him being caricatured as evil. Those who exhibit this are unable to see who he is. I get the same sense here. While I was reading the comments following his apology, it became clear to me that folks who are riled up about this weren't listening. They want blood. Were acid dumped on him, they would cheer.

People are like that. They can be mean. They can take pleasure from the pain of others. While this is part of what makes us human, I don't find it the best part. I don't think the language used by the spokesman represents the best part of who we are either, but of the two evils, I think the former is worse than the latter. Given his position and the possibility of what it could do to the candidacy, I would agree he should step down, however, because it is now been given the attention it has and has riled up the furor of people, the purpose of stepping down will be rather to take him out of the limelight, though it will leave behind a metaphorical scar from the acid thrown his way from which he may or not be able to heal. According to your position, however, no one should care about this person anyway. Whatever he gets, he deserves to get.

James

[mtbturtle]

owleye,

The person who took this public is Jay Townsend official campaign spokesman for Rep. Nan Hayworth’s (R-NY). See when you make statements in public and you are an official spokesman...well nobody else can be said to be taking your statements public. They already are public.

You know what I find repellent official spokespersons trolling internet communities making offensive vile violent remarks. But we should just ignore that it seems.

Could you point out to me where I even vaguely gave the impression that nobody should care about him personally? ah nevermind....

[owleye]

owleye,

The person who took this public is Jay Townsend official campaign spokesman for Rep. Nan Hayworth’s (R-NY). See when you make statements in public and you are an official spokesman...well nobody else can be said to be taking your statements public. They already are public.

Well, to me, making something public means that we are publicizing it. We contact news outlets. Or we make speeches with the idea that they will be made public. When its possible to gather information that is intended to be private or intended for a narrow audience, using some measure of surveillance, then publicizing what one gathers doesn't make what was gathered by this already public. I'll concede here that the spokesman in question was at least stupid here in that it wasn't too much of a stretch for others to listen in on what what was said, but I'm not going to translate what he said as publicizing it. The boundary line here is difficult, I know, and its what Supreme Court Justices often have to weigh in on, but I feel it's important to make that distinction.

You know what I find repellent official spokespersons trolling internet communities making offensive vile violent remarks. But we should just ignore that it seems.

Hmm. This incident has affected you in ways that are clouding your thinking. If there is evidence of this spokesman trolling internet communities making offensive vile remarks, then of course we are and I am going to be repelled by this and that we or I shouldn't ignore it. I'm willing to listen to this evidence. It's worth publicizing. First, if this is the case, the campaign itself ought to know, and of course this means the incumbent would like to know. Indeed, if this is the case, I'd be going not after the spokesman on this but rather on whoever put him in that position. Surely there would be signs early on of this practice before it had a chance to reach the public. If the campaign itself were so infected, the public needs to know this. It's hard to imagine that this is how a campaign would like to run its campaign.

I'm truly willing to listen here. If indeed it is the case that this spokesman has a history of trolling internet communities spewing offensive remarks that offend their intended recipient then he should be quashed, more power to those capable of doing so. Personally, I'd like to see all trolls quashed in some ways, but I don't see that happening in today's world. My reading of it was different, however, and I thought its publication made it unduly harsh. Yes, he behaved badly, even out of line, the more so because of his role as a spokesman, and probably should step down on his own accord, but unless there was something more to this than this one incident, or that he actually intended for acid to be thrown at the "Lilly Ledbetters", then I'd be willing to forgive him as a person.

Could you point out to me where I even vaguely gave the impression that nobody should care about him personally? ah nevermind....

Well, I'd take as evidence your response of the previous paragraph on this post. But I wasn't so much addressing you personally, I'd been referring to the general problem of people in the news. Public figures. We often don't know who they are personally and instead develop images of them which may or may not represent who they are. As far as I know, the spokesman was an obscure figure before this, and though a spokesman, probably isn't recognized beyond the campaign he is a spokesman of. I don't know him at all, except for the quotations ascribed to him. Why should I judge him as one who promulgates throwing acid on Feminists, which is the headline of the story? Yes, the language he spoke is offensive, and reflects badly on him, his apology much better, but the original quotation seemed to me to reflect a context of a campaign he is involved in which is in a kind of frenzy and in that condition, the language I can imagine might be harsh. It doesn't excuse it, but it would be helpful to know. I wouldn't have characterized it as something a troll does, who hides behind anonymity to spew venom as he pops in and out of the places he goes.

However, regardless of the anonymity part, if this is the case, or if my understanding of the situation is wrong, I recant everything that I've said.

James.

[Watson]

Just on another note, I googled the author of the article and one bit I read was someone offering their services as a troll and also providing a hint that he does it as his job? The author/publisher did say he reports under reported news. Could be that means making news from a non issue. Not that this didn't happen, or isn't awful to say it, but speaking stupid isn't news. Seems like the author is more of a troll with just a different way about it.

Ok, DING. Carry on.

[mtbturtle]

Just on another note, I googled the author of the article and one bit I read was someone offering their services as a troll and also providing a hint that he does it as his job? The author/publisher did say he reports under reported news. Could be that means making news from a non issue. Not that this didn't happen, or isn't awful to say it, but speaking stupid isn't news. Seems like the author is more of a troll with just a different way about it.

Ok, DING. Carry on.

What on earth are you talking about?