In a repulsive, inappropriate-for-purported-future-leaders, and nonetheless entirely unsurprising revelation (the fact of, not the timing of — the only potentially surprising part), the Heffalump "kids", who are primed to be future [Inner] Party leaders, have demonstrated appalling allegiance to bigotry in both reasoning and discourse. Worse yet, it's using the same insecure discussion method as their elders did just a few months ago. This leads to two rather distressing conclusions.
First, that it's really the "parents'" fault. Where, after all, did these kids learn all that potty-mouthed diatribe? Admittedly, they probably first heard it at recess in the schoolyard, and particularly while ganging up on the nerds and geeks and nonconformists and just generally Others. But it became acceptable language in conversation — and concepts for conversation — around the dinner table, where they heard grandma saying the same thing (in slightly elevated language) with agreement — tacit or otherwise — from all of the other "adults." Or, at minimum, the other adults who were participating in the conversation, even passively, at the [Inner] Party's "adult" table. You know, the one that the kids feeling a sense of impending power and adulthood gravitate toward at holiday dinners, instead of hanging around with their siblings and cousins at the less-cool-and-less-entitled table.
Naturally, this calls the fitness of the "parents" into question. Or, rather, it would if their unfitness (and sheer stupidity) had not been definitively demonstrated. One can only wonder what other wonderful bon mots are being exchanged away from Signal among those kids. Or between those kids and their parents. Or among those parents.
Second, and perhaps more distressingly for the future of the nation (and for any future of conversation about it), there's the demonstrated inability of these kids to learn from their parents' undoubted errors. <SARCASM> After all, future electability is a helluva lot more important than mere national security and needless potential deaths, so they should have learned that a group chat invites someone to later release a partial/edited/whatever transcript. It doesn't matter whether it's a relatively secure system like Signal or the dubious protection of "private" social-media groups: It's gonna happen. </SARCASM> But even more than the too-much-later revelation of unelectable venomous spewing:† Why was no one stopping to think about the potential consequences of what they were saying, however firmly believed it was? Isn't their (the kids or the parents) constant diatribe against "wokeness" pretty solid evidence that consequences exist for "inappropriate" Othering? Even when that "inappropriateness" is the funhouse-mirror post hoc rationalization that it's "inappropriate" to call out perceived racism and its perceived related consequences (which, after all, hurts the feelings of those who benefit — however subtly, however indirectly, however unconsciously — from those consequences)?
The reason for (potentially, maybe) excusing, or at least minimizing, "mistakes" made by the kids is that they're supposed to learn from those mistakes. And grow up. On all evidence, at least in this "family" they do neither. Apparently, the "sticks and stones" theory of electoral politics continues to hold considerable weight. Except, that is, when wielded against one's opponents in a startlingly self-unaware demonstration of what can best be called "group sociopathy." Or, perhaps, we're just supposed to expect our government to look like a stereotypical frat house, now and in the future.
† Of course, this would have required these ignoramuses to actually want to, and do, some real research. To actually use education beyond that necessary to live in a company town, dig coal, and die of black-lung disease, or hold a good factory job (perhaps running a high-output loom), or fulfill the (conscripted) "warrior ethos" now so desireable. Or, for that matter, even follow down to this footnote, let alone consider any of the sources cited herein — or, that at least in this footnote, those sources that don't require them to read anything (not coincidentally, all of them). Not even just in English.