Snowflakes. Groomers. Cucks.
For years the MAGA movement has approached politics the way a bully would approach a schoolyard, sparring with labels so nasty, they seemed expressly chosen to appeal to the kind of people who stuffed nerds in lockers in sixth grade. And for years Democrats, abiding by the mantra to go high, not low, have responded by trying to be the adults in the room: defending themselves with facts, with context, with earnest explanations that nobody remembers (if they defend themselves at all).
The problem is that taking the high road only works if politics is a sport played mainly by people who act like grown-ups, which it is not. And also: Facts and context don’t make for particularly sticky messaging.
Enter: Weird.
Over the past two weeks, as “Brat” and coconut memes have taken over the internet and Kamala Harris inches closer to Donald Trump in the polls, the Democrats have finally gone low, deploying a bit of verbal jujitsu so delightfully petty it might just work.
Back when Michelle Obama said when they go low, we go high–I told my wife “I really wish that worked in American politics, I really do…but it simply doesn’t”. My wife disagreed. Because my wife is a mature, kind-hearted Democrat. She thinks you can bring an informational brochure to a bar fight.
Maybe there is a way to de-escalate things and return to more civil “statesmanship” style in our politics. But my guess is that these things follow some kind of up-and-down cycle, and you don’t want to be on the side that’s lagging.
I saw an article that summarizes people like your wife as those living in a West Wing (TV show) fantasy. I wish we lived in such a world too, but we definitely do not.
I do not mean offense to your wife. I envy people that still have that type of faith.
No offense taken. She has a hard time seeing how nasty it has become. She limits her exposure to the news, which is mostly a good thing.
It isn’t a good thing overall if it means she’s that out of touch.
Out of touch with what? How ducking awful humans really are?
Out of touch with current politics.
Elaborate. Which part of the GOP platform are we going to talk about? Oh, right, they don’t have one. There’s literally nothing to discuss.
The part where she thinks you can take information to a bar fight…?
It’s not just one or the other.
You can’t ignore it, you can’t pick it apart and expect people to listen. Even if they listen, now you’re spending all your time explaining.
What you is dismiss them quickly and broadly, then talk about what you would do.
They won’t waste time trying to talk policy, so they’re reduced to making the same insults and getting the same dismissals.
It makes them look “weak” and the more they fight back the crazier shit they have to make up. It’s a feedback loop.
Biden tried to do it, he just couldn’t string together enough words. Kamala can, but it’s not some master strategy, just the common sense response to the situation
Sure, I hear you and what you’re saying, and it all makes sense. I think it depends on the time, the place, and the audience. I would say in general there has been a sea change here in the Trump post-truth world. And in general, things are much, much nastier as far as the tone and style goes. Things were very nasty when it came to policy and actual backroom deals back when Reagan took over. But at least the evil old bastard was charming and liked most Americans in his own goofy / phony way. He did pit us against each other but more in the grandpa wants to watch the kids wrestle kind of way compared to Trump’s “let’s destroy democracy” kind of way.
I also think it’s very important that the Democrats continue to be for some things and not just 100% against things like the Republicans are.
Meeting in the middle and taking the high ground has worked a LOT in the past. In about 12 years, though some would argue since 2002, things changed. We can return to a more reasonable time, though I am of the opinion that the modern Republican Party needs to be gutted and replaced before we can do that. They are so far right that they’ve done a complete circle and have ended up with various heads in far too many asses.
I’m a big picture kind of person and that large magical totally not a portal painting on the wall points to the party being beyond saving.
Yeah I think the winning move is “we can discuss the issues as mature adults whenever you choose to. But until then if you’re going to insist on name calling and fascism I’m going to call you the pathetic weirdo you’re being”
I mean honestly, this is correct. There are likely a few Republicans in positions of some power that disagree with how things have gone. Unfortunately, I feel they are far in the minority. Today it is no longer an issue of mild morality disagreements, or a lack of some fearless leader. The bigots, racists, and fascists have taken over the party.
Now there are ways to change this. Shift the status quo away from their foolish and evil ideologies. BUT it would take commitment from leaders of both parties - NOT assigned leaders, people who are instead well-respected, to step up together. Problem is there is no one on that side of the fence who fits that role right now. Chances are we’d have to vote them in. After all, we can affect that too. If we know a Democrat isn’t likely to take a seat, push for the better Republican. No reason we can’t move left by yanking and pulling in equal measure.
Fully agree except I don’t think it will be republicans who join us there. I think we’ll end up with a Democrat split once the republicans are unviable
It’s further back than that. Newt Gingrich in the 90s proved that the “fuck you, I’m gonna break your shit” republican strategy was surprisingly (politically) effective in the context of winning American elections and curbing the (publicly apparent) effectiveness of the Democratic Party. The DNC just took over 30 fucking years to fully understand that, and in the interim, the American public has paid the price.
I considered pushing back even into the late 70s. I think though, the shift to the modern mental breakdown really began happening after Sept. 11th. With 2002 really kicking off the U.S. involvement in the middle east as a response to the incident. As we know now pointing the guns at the more convenient (for us) targets. I’m no historian though.
I sure wouldn’t miss them.
They go low, we kick them in the teeth.
Knee to the nose would be my personal go to if someone “goes low”
As a democratic compromise i propose we do both
This does seem easier, logistically.
Exactly, we don’t go high because they go low, they go low because they know we’ll go high.
Have to fight back against the bullies to get them to stop.
I think it’s missing the point. It’s not effective for being name-calling. It’s just saying what everyone is already thinking. Like in the 2020 debate when Biden said “Will you just shut up, man?” It was relatable because Trump runs his fucking mouth all the time.
This is the same. It’s a relatable feeling - Trump is deeply weird and out of touch. Vance is so creepy people didn’t even bother to check if he really wrote about fucking a couch.Vance is so creepy people didn’t even bother to check if he really wrote about fucking a couch.
Nailed it. Pre-Trump era I would have frantically searched for a source. These days my expectations from the Republicans are so unbelievably low.
I don’t like the implications for future political discourse…
but fuck it, for now it’s refreshing to see the reactions of surprise by that camp… Did they think that Dems didn’t dunk on them “playground style” cuz they couldn’t?
All due respect to Michelle Obama otherwise, but I think she was flat out wrong when she said ‘When they go low, we go high’. It’s the paradox of tolerance applied to the political realm. How do you ensure a tolerant society in the face of intolerant people? It’s impossible if you’re not allowed be intolerant of intolerant people. How do you ensure that political discourse sticks to concrete policies and objective facts when your opponent refuses to engage with either but instead stoops to conspiracy theories and personal attacks? Also impossible if you’re stuck talking about difficult concepts and nuanced facts while your opponent is free to sling personal insults and cognitively sticky memes that may have absolutely nothing to do with reality.
The solution is to apply social contract theory. Tolerance doesn’t have to be a rule that you’re not allowed to break. It can be a social contract instead, so when someone breaks the social contract by being intolerant you are no longer bound by the contract, freeing you to not tolerate their behavior in return. Similarly, sticking to policy- and fact-based political debate doesn’t have to be a rule you’re not allowed to break, it can be a social contract between political opponents. If the other candidate won’t debate policy or facts then you’re free of the contract, which means you’re free to say they’re weird. Which they very much fucking are. Once you get most of the figurative children out of the room, you can go back to making actual progress amongst the contract-adhering adults who remain.
You are no longer bound by the contract, freeing you to not tolerate their behavior in return.
An important perspective here is also: by not agreeing to the terms of a social contract the other party is, in fact, forfeiting their right to be treated as a signatory to contract, and any implied protection that accompanies it. When I frame it like that it feels less like I have a license to actively be hostile in response to douchebaggery of the right, and more that they have opted to stand in the douchebaggery lineup.
6 in one, half dozen in the other, but I like putting the responsibility on them for a change.
You said it so well. 8 years too late but hopefully still enough time to avert a real disaster.
https://app.getrecall.ai/share/b53f83e5-f90e-555e-a808-aaf7ca787ee0
The Prisoner’s Dilemma The video discusses the Prisoner’s Dilemma, a famous problem in game theory that arises in various situations, from international conflicts to everyday life.
The Prisoner’s Dilemma illustrates the potential for conflict and suboptimal outcomes when individuals act rationally in their own self-interest.
The example of the US-Soviet nuclear arms race highlights how the Prisoner’s Dilemma played out in a real-world scenario, leading to a costly arms buildup and a stalemate.
The video introduces the Prisoner’s Dilemma through a hypothetical game involving two players and a choice between cooperation and defection.
The game demonstrates that regardless of the opponent’s choice, the best strategy for each player is to defect, leading to a suboptimal outcome for both.
The video also mentions the role of the RAND Corporation in studying the Prisoner’s Dilemma and its implications for the US-Soviet conflict.
The video concludes by highlighting the prevalence of the Prisoner’s Dilemma in various contexts, including the behavior of impalas in removing ticks.
Impalas face a dilemma when grooming each other: cooperating by grooming another impala comes at a cost, but they also need to be groomed.
The dilemma is similar to the Prisoner’s Dilemma, where the rational choice is to defect, but repeated interactions change the dynamics.
Robert Axelrod’s Prisoner’s Dilemma Tournament Robert Axelrod conducted a computer tournament to find the best strategy in a repeated Prisoner’s Dilemma.
He invited game theorists to submit computer programs, called strategies, which played against each other for 200 rounds.
The tournament was repeated five times to ensure the results were robust.
One of the simplest strategies, Tit for Tat, won the tournament.
Tit for Tat starts by cooperating and then mirrors its opponent’s last move, cooperating after cooperation and defecting after defection.
Tit for Tat’s success highlights the importance of cooperation and retaliation in repeated interactions.
The tournament results demonstrate that simple, consistent strategies can be more effective than complex ones in repeated games.
Tit for Tat’s Success and Qualities of Successful Strategies The Prisoner’s Dilemma Tournament: Robert Axelrod conducted a tournament where computer programs played the Prisoner’s Dilemma game against each other. The goal was to see which strategy would be most successful in maximizing its own payoff.
Tit for Tat’s Success: The simplest strategy, Tit for Tat, emerged as the winner. It was a “nice” strategy, meaning it didn’t defect first, but it was also retaliatory, defecting only when its opponent did.
Qualities of Successful Strategies: Axelrod found that the best-performing strategies shared four qualities: they were nice, forgiving, clear, and simple.
The Importance of Being Forgiving: Forgiving strategies, like Tit for Tat, were able to retaliate but didn’t hold grudges. This allowed them to build trust and cooperation over time.
The Second Tournament: Axelrod held a second tournament, this time with an unknown number of rounds. This change was significant because it removed the incentive to defect in the final rounds.
The Rise of Nasty Strategies: Some contestants in the second tournament submitted “nasty” strategies, hoping to exploit the forgiving nature of others.
Tit for Tat’s Continued Dominance: Despite the emergence of nasty strategies, Tit for Tat remained the most effective strategy in the second tournament. Nice strategies continued to outperform nasty ones.
Axelrod’s research identified four key qualities of successful strategies in the repeated Prisoner’s Dilemma: being nice, forgiving, retaliatory, and clear. These qualities are similar to the “eye for an eye” morality that has evolved around the world.
Tit for Tat, a strategy that cooperates on the first turn and then mirrors the opponent’s previous move, was a successful strategy in Axelrod’s tournaments. However, it is important to note that there is no single best strategy in the repeated Prisoner’s Dilemma, as the best strategy depends on the other strategies it interacts with.
The Evolution of Cooperation Axelrod conducted a simulation where successful strategies reproduced and unsuccessful strategies died out. This simulation showed that even in a world where nasty strategies initially thrive, nice strategies like Tit for Tat can eventually dominate the population.
Axelrod’s research suggests that cooperation can emerge even in a population of self-interested individuals. This is because cooperation can be a more successful strategy in the long run, even if it requires some initial risk.
Axelrod’s insights have been applied to various fields, including evolutionary biology and international conflicts. His work suggests that cooperation can evolve even in the absence of trust or conscious thought, as long as it is encoded in DNA and performs better than other strategies.
The Impact of Noise and Errors The text discusses the impact of noise and errors in game theory, using the example of the Soviet satellite system mistaking sunlight for a missile launch. This highlights the importance of studying the effects of noise on strategies.
The text explains that Tit for Tat, a strategy of cooperation followed by retaliation for defection, performs poorly in a noisy environment due to the potential for misinterpretations.
To address this issue, a more forgiving version of Tit for Tat is introduced, where retaliation occurs only 9 out of 10 times. This allows for breaking out of echo effects while still maintaining a deterrent against exploitation.
The Importance of Cooperation and Win-Win Situations The text emphasizes that winning in life is not always about beating the other player, but rather about finding win-win situations and working together to unlock rewards. This is illustrated by the example of the US and Soviet Union gradually reducing their nuclear stockpiles through cooperation.
The text concludes by highlighting the enduring lessons from Axelrod’s tournaments: be nice, forgiving, but not a pushover.
The Speaker’s Insights and Recommendations The text mentions that Anatol Rapoport submitted Tit for Tat to the tournament at the request of the speaker.
The speaker emphasizes the importance of choices in life, as they shape not only our own future but also the future of those we interact with.
While the environment initially influences our success, in the long run, it is our choices that shape the environment.
The speaker encourages viewers to play the game of life strategically, as their choices have a wider impact than they might realize.
The speaker recommends Brilliant, an online learning platform, as a resource for developing critical thinking and problem-solving skills.
Brilliant offers a course on probability, which teaches viewers how to analyze real-world situations involving chance and risk.
The speaker highlights the hands-on nature of Brilliant’s lessons and encourages viewers to try the platform for free for 30 days.
deleted by creator
Yeah. I think they thought that. The bully doesn’t think the victim can fight back. Or maybe they just think they never will. But someday the victim does
I mean, John Quincy Adams called Jackson’s wife a slut and Andrew Jackson called Adams a pimp.
Adams, “yeah, pimping out your wife!”
Jackson: Oh boy, here I go dueling again!
“Your wife is everyone’s Huckleberry” - Adams
Future Presidential debates:
“Shut up you lying little bitch”
“Come make me, fuckface!”
Schoolyard Insults: Presidential Edition
I love how b!t©h is removed but “fuckface” is peachy.
Only because you’re on ml, my instance gives me the full uncensored text.
Still hilariously arbitrary, no matter who’s dumb idea it was.
wait is it just straight up removed, or censored like b****?
There’s a hunter2 joke here but I’m too old and tired
Why did you just type a bunch of asterisks in the middle of a sentence?
It appears as removed. Example: "You son of a removed!
…deploying a bit of verbal jujitsu so delightfully petty it might just work
It’s not even petty. It’s just true. Republicans, with their obsessions over what’s going on in everyone’s pants and bedrooms, really are weird and creepy.
MAGAs are one trick ponies. Never engage them. Always call them out. It is easy once you know their game.
I was annoyed at that “when they go low, we go high” rhetoric. No you kick them in the teeth. Politics is a pig wrestling competition and you gotta get dirty.
Don’t let Shady Vance go near your couch cushions.
You mean JD Vance, the man who wrote Wet Goddess: Recollections of a Dolphin Lover under the pen name Malcolm Brenner?
Are you saying JD Vance not only
lovesfucks couches, he also reallylovesfucks dolphins?Does he like fish sticks?
Are you saying JD Vance keeps Kanye’s song “Gay Fish” on constant rotation?
Republicans are disgusting
So, this guy said he wants to bang his daughter back in 2016 and it took you 8 years to settle with “weird”.
Woah, slow down there cowboy!
We called him out on it then. But man, this weirdo just took it in stride like being called a fascist by everyone from historians to neo nazis. But weird, he doesn’t like it when we acknowledge he’s weird.
No it’s perfect because harsh insults would turn off some Democrats, but saying they’re weird though, it’s just pointing out the obvious and making people think “Isn’t it weird that the guy says he’s here for the common folks but he’s a billionaire?” “Isn’t it weird to support someone who said women should be grabbed by their pussy?”
My only issue with using weird to refer to them is how much I love Weird Al Yankovic…
Fuck it tho… if weird works to get under the skin of fascistsI don’t think it’ll hurt AL in the slightest.
There’s good weird and bad weird.
Trump is shit. Vance is stupid. Match made in hell. Wierd just aint cuttin it, comrades
They’re both weird and creepy in their own ways. The GOP is like a Petri dish that someone smeared rabid monkey shit on, and we’re all watching it fester and mutate.
Bout damn time we give up this “We go high” bullshit
This is much, much “higher” than the right.
We’d have to have Joe Biden drop the Hard-R on Mark Robinson to reach anywhere near the lows of the Right
i find weird and creepy to be less name calling and more fact pointing
Have some Lemmy Gold.
i love how there are like 10 different kinds of lemmy gold
Good observation!
Take these!
And these as well!
There is??? I’ve never seen anyone offer up any in the comment sections I’ve been in.
Let’s keep up the “name calling” facts
Matt Gatez creepily traffics children
Gym Jordan is, at best, a creepy enabler of pedophiles
Mike Johnson weirdly discusses individual porn movies with his children
(I’m not trying to stick to a theme here)
Lauren Boebert seems to weirdly enjoy public indecencyyes! they key is to use factual words that these very simple, emotionally driven people understand.
If you want name-calling, these work:
The primary difference being that the Dems are backing up the name calling with actual policies or things they’ve done.
Trump is weird bc he constantly says off the wall things, does weird shit, and supports unpopular policies (which are weird).
Vance is creepy because he believes and says super weird shit about women. Like how he believes women have to have kids to have value - that is creepy. If somebody said that on a date, there would not be another date. And how he nevertheless has no problem with childless couches - pretty hypocritical and creepy.
And from the repub side:
Schumer is a “member of Hamas” because… it is inflamatory
Kamala is “laughing kamala” because… she laughs sometimes. She is also a “radical democrat socialist” because… she supports mainstream, popular, dem policies
Like how he believes women have to have kids to have value - that is creepy. If somebody said that on a date, there would not be another date.
“Look, what I am saying that I’m looking for a women who knows that their sole purpose is to make babies for me. I am willing to entertain myself with the couch…Oh, you have to the washroom.”
Four hours later
“Psh, women and their bathroom habits.”
