Political Pettiness Stoops To A New Low

The Mockery of Florida Parkland survivor

Dinesh+D%27Souza%27s+tweet%28Photo+courtesy+of+Dailycaller%29

Dinesh D'Souza's tweet(Photo courtesy of Dailycaller)

Wayne Chan, Editor

Following the March for our Lives, a counter movement supporting the second amendment right arose. The gun debate, now amplified more than ever, takes the center of the political focus. Appropriately, with any political incident, public figures and policy makers chimed their opinions. Politics, by nature, is an arena of pettiness and childish politics; however, the Florida Parkland Survivors became victims of horrid mockery.

Steve King, said concerning Emma Gonzalez’s outfit during March for Our Lives, “This is how you look when you claim Cuban heritage yet don’t speak Spanish and ignore the fact that your ancestors fled the island when the dictatorship turned Cuba into a prison camp, after removing all weapons from its citizens; hence their right to self defense.” Steve King righteously faced immediately backlash as his comment was gratuitous and intellectually diminished. To start, there is no relevance between being able to speak the language of your ancestral origin and claiming heritage. You are born with a heritage: you are born Mexican, you are born Chinese, you are born with the heritage of your ancestors. However, Steve King seemingly implies that you must speak the language of the heritage to be a certain heritage or else you will look like “this,” further insulting the survivor. Emma Gonzalez bearing the Cuban flag, in my opinion, was representative of the minority, a population Steve King has exhibited a pattern of discrimination.

Laura Ingraham continued with the mockery by labeling David Hogg as a whiny privileged kid who could not accept rejection from colleges. Ted Nugent a long member of the NRA called the survivors “not very educated” and would not be able to distinguish between an AR15 and a pterodactyl. Dinesh D’souza tweeted “Worst news since their parents told them to get summer jobs” and “adults 1, kids 0”

These ad hominem attacks have no place in the gun debate. They serve no practical or pragmatic purpose other than to disparage already traumatized survivors. These people, kids even, should not be mocked as any victim of rape, or veteran of war, or survivor of any trauma should be mocked. These politicians play a ground of higher education and self-assumed intelligence because of their deteriorating age.

Perhaps these adult politicians should work to correct their legislative complacency and political inability before the blood of children are spilled more in the place of education. Any debate is of course welcome in our search for a solution, but such petty mockery is completely useless and only reflects the incapacity of these inept politicians.

Ryan Lowery(11) echoes the same sentiment:

“there is a critical difference between constructive dispute of opinion and the childish mockery of people who have endured such trauma, especially children.”