samiam
2d ago
Since the NY Times article linked in the parent post is paywalled, here is an AI summary of the article’s contents:
AI Generated Text Follows
Detailed Summary
This article examines allegations and personal accounts from several women who dated Graham Platner, a Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate in Maine. The story emerges amid growing scrutiny of Platner's personal history, including reports that he exchanged sexual messages with women while married, previous controversial online comments about women and rape, and questions surrounding a tattoo associated with Nazi symbolism.
Central Theme
The article presents a divided portrait of Platner. Some former partners describe him as kind, caring, and supportive, while others recount relationships they characterize as emotionally damaging, volatile, and, in one case, physically intimidating. The piece explores how these accounts complicate Platner's campaign narrative of personal redemption following struggles with PTSD, depression, and alcohol abuse after military service.
The Women Who Raised Concerns
The most critical accounts come from three women who were involved with Platner over extended periods.
Lyndsey Fifield
Lyndsey Fifield dated Platner between roughly 2013 and 2015 while both lived in the Washington, D.C., area.
She described the relationship as passionate but deeply unhealthy. According to Fifield:
- Platner often drank heavily.
- He was repeatedly unfaithful.
- He displayed contempt toward women and their emotions.
- He sometimes became physically aggressive during arguments.
While she explicitly stated that he never punched or hit her, she alleged several incidents involving physical force:
- Grabbing her shoulders hard enough to leave marks.
- Pulling her out of a taxi by the wrist during an argument.
- Twisting her arm behind her back and forcing her into a room, then holding the door shut until she calmed down.
Platner's campaign strongly denied allegations of physical intimidation or abuse.
Fifield also described behavior that she found disturbing:
- Keeping an AR-15 rifle in his apartment.
- Frequently sharpening an axe while watching television.
- Expressing fascination with violence.
- Making repeated comments about rape as an act of dominance rather than sexuality.
She recalled him saying that if someone broke into his home, he would rape them to establish dominance. The campaign did not directly dispute that he made such remarks.
Fifield said she came away from the relationship believing Platner held deeply misogynistic attitudes. Years later, she recorded in a diary that he was "the most toxic literally abusive man on earth who destroyed my life."
The article notes that Fifield is politically conservative and has worked with Republican-affiliated organizations. Platner's campaign emphasized this fact, suggesting political motivations. Fifield rejected that characterization, insisting she would speak out regardless of his party affiliation.
The Anonymous Maine Woman
A second woman, a Democrat from Maine who requested anonymity, described an on-and-off long-distance relationship with Platner that lasted for years.
Her description echoed themes raised by Fifield:
- Charisma mixed with emotional instability.
- Heavy drinking.
- Frequent womanizing.
- Relationships that left emotional damage.
She summarized her experience by saying she felt like "collateral damage to the world that is his."
Although the article provides fewer specific allegations from this woman, her account reinforced the image of a man whose personal relationships were often chaotic and harmful.
Jenny Racicot
Jenny Racicot, a Maine Democrat, dated Platner intermittently between 2019 and 2021, a period that overlaps with what Platner describes as his post-trauma recovery phase.
Racicot said that revelations about Platner's past online comments regarding women did not surprise her.
According to her:
- The comments matched aspects of his personality she had personally witnessed.
- She believed he did not respect women.
- In 2021, he arrived at her home intoxicated after she had told him not to come.
Although she declined to discuss details of that incident, she described the behavior as reckless and unsettling. Afterward, she ended contact with him.
Women Who Defended Platner
The article also includes testimony from women who had positive experiences with Platner.
Caroline Lemp
Caroline Lemp, who dated him briefly in 2013, described him as:
- Kind
- Fun
- Respectful
- Safe to be around
She called him a "gentle giant" and said she never saw signs of aggression or instability.
Two Anonymous Former Partners
Two additional former partners, interviewed through Platner's campaign, also offered favorable assessments.
They said:
- He never physically threatened them.
- They felt safe around him.
- While one noticed problematic drinking habits, neither experienced abusive conduct.
These women support his Senate candidacy and reject the negative portrait painted by other former partners.
The Tattoo Controversy
A major section of the article focuses on Platner's controversial tattoo.
The tattoo is a skull-and-crossbones image known as the Totenkopf, historically associated with Nazi SS units.
Platner's Explanation
Platner has repeatedly said:
- He got the tattoo while stationed in Croatia with fellow Marines in 2007.
- He believed it was simply an intimidating skull-and-crossbones image.
- He did not realize it was widely recognized as a Nazi symbol until reporters raised concerns during his Senate campaign.
- Once informed, he moved to cover the tattoo.
Fifield's Contradictory Account
Fifield strongly disputes this explanation.
She claims:
- Platner referred to the tattoo as "my Totenkopf."
- He explicitly discussed its Nazi origins years before the campaign.
- He explained that Marines in his unit selected the image because they saw parallels between themselves as a combat unit and the historical military reputation associated with the symbol.
Platner's campaign categorically denied her account.
This dispute raises broader questions in the article about Platner's credibility and whether he has been fully transparent regarding the tattoo's origins and meaning.
Platner's Narrative of Recovery
Throughout his Senate campaign, Platner has framed his life story as one of struggle and redemption.
He has openly discussed:
- Combat service in the Marines.
- PTSD.
- Anxiety.
- Depression.
- Alcohol abuse.
- Difficulty maintaining relationships after military service.
According to his account:
- He was emotionally damaged after leaving the military.
- His early post-service years were characterized by heavy drinking and personal instability.
- He returned to his hometown of Sullivan, Maine, in 2016.
- Through therapy and support from the Department of Veterans Affairs, he rebuilt his life.
- He eventually took over an oyster farm and became active in local community life.
The article acknowledges these efforts at recovery but questions whether his personal growth has been as complete as his campaign portrays.
Evidence of Continued Problems
The article points to more recent events suggesting ongoing issues.
Reddit Posts
Journalists reviewed more than 1,400 Reddit comments made by Platner between 2016 and 2021.
The posts reveal:
- Continuing struggles processing military experiences.
- Discussions of politics and social issues.
- Statements reflecting a transition away from his earlier worldview.
By 2021, he described himself as a socialist, gardener, and psychedelic user who no longer embraced the patriotic ideals that motivated him to enlist.
However, some of his older posts also contained remarks about women and rape that became politically damaging once uncovered during the campaign.
Dating-App Allegations
The article describes a 2024 discussion in a private Facebook group called "Are We Dating the Same Guy."
A woman posted that:
- Platner had previously ghosted her.
- He later appeared on another dating app.
- She suspected he might have a significant other.
Multiple women reportedly responded, noting that he was married.
Racicot confirmed the discussion was genuine.
Marriage and Sexting Revelations
Further pressure on Platner's campaign emerged when reports revealed he had exchanged sexual messages with multiple women while married to Amy Gertner.
The revelations:
- Alarmed Democratic Party leaders.
- Threatened his image as a redeemed and stable family man.
- Created questions about whether more undisclosed information might surface.
Platner acknowledged causing marital problems but disputed parts of the reporting.
Gertner publicly defended him, stating that while their marriage was imperfect, she wanted to remain married to him and support his candidacy.
Overall Conclusion
The article presents Graham Platner as a deeply polarizing figure whose personal history has become a major issue in his Senate campaign.
Supporters and some former partners describe him as compassionate, intelligent, and transformed by years of therapy and self-reflection after military service. However, several long-term former partners paint a darker picture, describing patterns of misogyny, emotional volatility, heavy drinking, infidelity, and, in one case, physical intimidation.
The reporting does not conclusively verify all allegations, and Platner disputes many of the most serious claims. Nevertheless, the accounts challenge his campaign's central message that his troubled years are entirely behind him. As Democrats view Maine's Senate race as strategically important, the controversy has intensified scrutiny of whether Platner's personal conduct aligns with the image of growth and redemption he has presented to voters.
samiam
3d ago
Another option, albeit commercial, is SoftMaker Office, and they do make a free beer version of an older version of their office suite. I myself use the free beer version of the 2006 release of the office suite for document writing; it’s lighting fast in a modern computer and works really nicely.
If I need a newer feature, e.g. ODF (or DOCX) support, Color fonts, etc. I reach to Libre Office. But SoftMaker’s 2006 free suite works really well for my needs 99% of the time I need to edit a document.
samiam
1mo ago
more women are into BDSM than men are
Yes, and based on women’s porn preferences, we have solid scientific studies backing up that claim.
samiam
1mo ago
"Do not bring the Second Amendment into this courtroom. It doesn’t exist here. So you can’t argue Second Amendment. This is New York.". Likewise the suspension of Habeas Corpus under Lincoln.
samiam
1mo ago
See my sister post.
samiam
1mo ago
I think the difference is a semantic one. Whether this post is a “joke”, a “celebration”, or what not, it’s definitely a (submarine) endorsement of the assassination attempt.
There is probably a name for this specific rhetorical gambit, where someone says something imprecisely and their interlocutor interprets it in the most dumbass literal fashion possible and pretends to believe that is how they meant it and play gotcha, but it's very tiresome.
It’s a version of the “straw man” fallacy. The “straw man” here is that he’s pretending I said “it’s a problem when people start killing people under any circumstance”, even after I clarified to him I didn’t mean that, and even after multiple other posters told this poster his interpretation of my words is incorrect.
So using a fallacious rhetorical gotcha appears to be him trying to dunk on someone he sees as a political opponent. Or maybe he’s just really stubborn and unwilling to admit he thought he read something that wasn’t actually there.
The point I am making is this: Once we condone political violence, whether it’s the assassination of Brian Thompson, Charlie Kirk, or the multiple attempts to assassinate Trump, we are going down a very dark road which, if we continue down, will result in a lot of innocent people being killed and the possible dismantling of our political systems which have been working very well for well over two centuries.
samiam
1mo ago
I will not respond to you further until you answer this question someone else has already asked you:
Are you taking as a given that Democrats think of the opposition party the same way that right-wingers think of a hostile foreign nation that has been calling for Death to America for 50 years?
samiam
1mo ago
the parent poster specifically said "celebrating the deaths of people they don’t like"
It’s clear looking at the context of that posting that I meant “Trump”. As I said elsewhere in this thread, Trump was democratically elected in 2024 by the majority of the voters. This is a far cry from the leaders of the authoritarian regime in Iran, who have killed thousands of peaceful protesters in Iran. In other words, it’s a false equivalence.
samiam
1mo ago
the parent poster's criterion for being "lost completely" was "celebrating the deaths of people they don't like", not "celebrating the deaths of democratically elected leaders" or "celebrating the deaths of objectively good people" or even "celebrating the deaths of their countrymen"
Since you asked for clarification: “they don’t like” clearly means “Trump” here, since it was Trump who this person was trying to kill. Trump is a democratically elected leader; he is president because, in 2024, the majority of the voters wanted him to be president again. Trump has not killed thousands of protesters; even if the two people killed in anti-ICE protests was somehow killed because of Trump, that is nowhere near the 30,000 or so people massacred in Iran for protesting this year. There is a world of difference between not liking someone because of their politics and committing mass murder of peaceful protesters and other crimes against humanity.
For the record, I am opposed to the war in Iran for the same reason I opposed the second war in Iraq (in retrospect, Desert Storm was needed to stop Hussein from terrorizing the entire Middle East) and the war in Afghanistan: It would seem that people in Middle Eastern countries want to have oppressive authoritarian regimes. It’s telling that 2011’s “Arab Spring” did not result in sustained free democratic countries.
samiam
1mo ago
As an aside, Amaden, the main points brought up by the crowd that believe in 80/20 (some form of the false notion that 80% of the women sleep with 20% of the men) have been extensively studied and refuted by one Maximus.
What both him and I have found, after looking closely at the research, is that about 20% of the men have 80% of the female sex partner count, but, likewise, about 25% of the women have 80% of the male sex partner count.
There is no polygyny. It’s just that the most promiscuous men tend to attract the promiscuous women.
On a personal note, I know I have a lot of recovery, because I’m no longer attracting only ultra promiscuous women. They’re still around in my life, as platonic friends, but that as far as it goes now that I have a very good girlfriend.
As of 2023, 60% of young men reported they were single. That number. 34% of young women reported being single. WHO ARE THE WOMEN DATING if not those young men?
Maximus goes in to it with some detail
The most likely explanations:
- Age gaps: Slightly older men tend to get together with slightly younger women
- The 2022 Pew Study was an outlier; most studies of this nature show a smaller singleness gap
About 60% of female sexual partnerships are with the 10% most promiscuous men. I have to interpret "most promiscuous" as "most attractive," because very, very few men are able to be promiscuous without being hot. Likewise, this looks VERY suggestive of a broader 80/20 rule in place.
Nope. Maximus explains it better than me.
According to the 2022 NSFG data:
- 9.76% of men have 52.6% of lifetime female sex partners. This is pretty close to 10/60, however...
- 11.18% of women have 50.0% of lifetime male sex partners
So, it’s not that 10% of men are with 50% (60%?) of the women. It’s more like 10% of the men sleep with a bunch of women, but those 10% of men are all sleeping with the same 12% or so of women. It’s not that they are “Chad”; there’s little correlation between attractiveness and promiscuity, it’s that they are promiscuous, and usually have other addiction patterns and attract similarly addicted women.
Indeed, there was a reply to that tweet claiming 60/10 making the same point.
Edit I have read the source paper.
It makes the following claim:
We have around twice as many female as male ancestors, as most men did not prevail in their intrasexual competition over women, and were thus deprived of becoming our ancestors (References: Kruger, Fisher and Wright 2014; Wilder, Mobasher and Hammer 2004)
However, Kruger et. al. 2014 makes no such claim. The Kruger paper make the opposite claim that the source paper makes: It says that it’s violent patriarchal societies that cause polygyny (i.e. one man many women), not female choice. The paper does not compare the number of male to female ancestors at all.
The second reference, Wilder et. al. 2004, makes the claim that the time to the last female ancestor is twice as long as the time to the last male ancestor, which is a very different claim than the one that two females historically reproduced for every man. The actual figures are that about 1.3 more women than men historically reproduced.
So, here, we see the paper trying to make the same point some guys make online (that women only want sex with very few men), but it makes one claim based on two papers which make no such claim.
It then goes on, citing Harper 2017 for evidence of increasing polygyny in modern society. The problem with Harper 2017 is that its data has not been replicated in more recent surveys.
Point being, the linked paper either completely misreads other papers or uses dubious research to force a narrative of a few men monopolizing all of the women.
(The paper then talks about dating apps, a popular boogeyman with guys who argue for modern polygyny, but dating apps do not affect the sexual marketplace that much.)
Edit 2
Mads Larsen is well known for believing 80/20; if his name is on a paper, it’s a big red flag that the claims in the paper are very suspect.
samiam
1mo ago
Naturally, they are celebrating the assassination attempt on Reddit. The leftists completely lost me once they started celebrating the deaths of people they don’t like; they obviously want society to break down completely.
samiam
1mo ago
It finally got some attention. On the New York Times it was buried, placed under the fold, and the headline is deceptive: “Justice Dept. Charges Prominent Civil Rights Group With Financial Crimes”.
It’s very telling that the mainstream left-wing media is completely ignoring this story as I type these words.
I have little compassion for the SPLC. They were one of the first people to accuse RooshV of starting a hate group in an era when RooshV’s forum was one of the few online spaces where men could feel supported, in an era that was so “woke” and man-hating that Al Franken’s career was ruined for putting his hands above a woman’s breasts in a picture which was obviously intended to be a joke.
The problem the SPLC and similar institutions which call out men for being “misogynistic” is that they have become leftists who look the other way, ignoring the widespread misandry coming from the left.
samiam
1mo ago
I don’t think those women were thinking men were mostly ugly. I think what happened is that women don’t build attraction from just looks the way men do.
In terms of replication, the results are generally not the gap we saw in that old OkCupid chart but, yes, there is a gap.
Misandry was normalized in the 2010s in really ugly ways:
- RooshV was banned from England for proposing an International Meetup Day for men
- Scott Aaronson was raked over the coals for saying “being a nerdy male might not make me ‘privileged’”
Even here in the 2020s, a lot of these misandrists, as just one example, age gap shame, but explicitly (or implicitly) say it’s only an issue when the man is older:
- This age gap shamer attacking Toby Maguire (50) for dating a 20-year-old woman says it’s OK when the woman is older
- Jessica pin age gap shamed here (even blocking me for posting stats showing her data was unreliable) then turns around and celebrates older women getting together with younger men.
Point being, people say idiotic provocative crap online for engagement.
samiam
1mo ago
it is probably because of being on the internet in the 2010s
The big difference between 2010s manosphere content and 2020s manosphere content is that there was a lot more optimism in the 2010s. 2010s RedPill content, yes, believed myths like 80/20 and AF/BB (i.e. the myth that only a few men get to be sexually active with a lot of women) but they also showed men how to sleep with a lot of women, and believed any man could achieve that with hard work. This was, of course, degeneracy, but there was an optimism I don’t see these days.
My biggest frustration is how this content is designed to have the most misogynist and negative view of women possible, believe myths simply because they make women look bad and make men angry with women, e.g. If I had a nickel every time that dishonest version of the 2009 OkCupid chart was reposted, I would be very rich.
This flamebait results in engagement, so it goes viral, but it isn’t healthy because it results in men hating women unreasonably. (There’s also misandry online, but that’s another discussion for another day)
My general impression is that Europe doesn’t respect free speech the way we do in the United States. For example, in England, one RooshV was banned from entering England (even for getting on a connecting flight) because he expressed views the leaders of England disagreed with.
I think a strong case that a lot of the online censorship (e.g. not allowing people to have frank discussions about Trans rights—and, yes it’s Reddit’s trans rights discussion censorship which drove The Motte to have their own website instead of remaining on Reddit) we saw in the late 2010s and early 2020s was partly a result of EU overreach. Indeed, Twitter/X doesn’t censor the way most other major social media platforms do, and they were hit with a huge fine from the EU late last year, and I feel the EU unfairly targeted Twitter/X because that platform allows people to express views which get people banned on other platforms.
For one, I’m glad this site is here to allow frank discussions. Yeah, it can be right-learning, but considering a lot of mainstream right-wing views are straight up suppressed and silenced on other platforms, it’s no surprise right wing people flock to the relatively few platforms which allow frank open discussion.
I’m saying all this as a classic liberal.
samiam
3mo ago
People who give advice on Reddit
I know, and I don’t have a link on me, that there’s a survey out there showing that Reddit has really gont downhill over the last decade: A decade ago, people were saying that people should try and work out issues in a relationship, but now most Reddit posters tell someone to end the relationship as soon as there are problems.
Reddit is full of lies and hatred. It’s always been a shithole for drug addicts and other really unpleasant people, and it’s gotten a lot worst post-Woke-culture.
samiam
3mo ago
My thought really quickly: LLMs are very good at tasks based on understanding of language, such as translation and copy editing the writings of someone not literate enough to write in proper English—and no, I don’t need LLMs to write good English (I also have had an em-dash on my customized keyboard mapping for well over a decade).
However, I know multiple people who use LLMs to get relationship advice or other services best left to a therapist, and this example of how they can’t correctly answer a question about whether to drive or walk to a car wash is a good example which I can use to show people they can’t ask a LLM whether to go out with someone/stay together with someone or give them a lot of space, because while LLMs speak languages well, they can’t do other tasks.
Another example: There’s a story going around that a Chess world champion played a LLM at Chess, and not only won, but won without losing a single piece. Naturally, AI can play Chess well enough to defeat him, but the technology used is something called “NNUE” (a different AI tech) along with alpha-beta pruning, not an LLM.
As an aside, a Chess engine strong enough to defeat world champions is fun to play with, because I can ask it questions like “Looking at all 20 of White’s legal first moves, which move makes the game as balanced as possible, giving White and Black equal winning chances?” and it will give me an answer like “1. a3” (the exact answer depends on how deep we search, but 1. a3 comes up at 21-ply and 35-ply deep searches). There’s even a version of this Chess engine which can play a lot of Chess Variants, so I can ask it questions like “given a larger board with two new pieces, one that moves like a knight or bishop, another that moves like a knight or rook, and given a particular opening setup, which White move gives him the most winning chances, and how much of an advantage does White have in this opening setup? What about an opening move to give both White and Black equal winning chances?”
OK, let’s look at an example of something posted on X from a troll farm in Africa:
https://archive.ph/20260127123745/https://x.com/Chizitere_xyz/status/2015879947659645361
(I blocked them for being in a troll farm, and I could tell it was troll farm content just by looking at it)
Your impression?
Edit: Another troll farm post
https://archive.ph/20260128064238/https://x.com/meishato/status/2016321283693412834
(The notion that women do all of the domestic labor in partnerships is a myth; see this article and if you think IfStudies are too biased, this study shows that men do more work in partnerships when we take in to account paid labor)
Edit: The troll farms also post hot take replies to get engagement. See https://archive.ph/20260130134610/https://x.com/ohreallly170464/status/2016975167738491090
The workarounds don’t always work. It’s a cat and mouse game and sometimes NYT is able to block archive.today.
More options
Context Copy link