There was an article on Psych about the Nyaya philosophical school’s approach to this. The limits of good faith debate and the “terms of engagement” needed for debate to be constructive was well...
There was an article on Psych about the Nyaya philosophical school’s approach to this. The limits of good faith debate and the “terms of engagement” needed for debate to be constructive was well known to them, and they posited strategy for dealing with bad faith. It’s sort of a tit for tat framework where if the other person has decided to take the gloves off there’s ways to take the gloves off yourself without giving up your commitment to truth.
Scott Alexander recently wrote an article aimed at conservatives called Some Practical Considerations Before Descending Into An Orgy Of Vengeance. It explores the possibility that Trump wins, the...
Scott Alexander recently wrote an article aimed at conservatives called Some Practical Considerations Before Descending Into An Orgy Of Vengeance. It explores the possibility that Trump wins, the pendulum in the US swings towards conservatism and conservatives get enough social power to definitively cancel people, something that they believe is generally done by (some fraction of) the left and that they might want to use against the left now that they feel they can.
I think the situation and the questions it poses are quite similar to what you're describing here, aimed at the opposite party, and it generally comes to the conclusion that using tactics like this because the other party does is a bad idea. I think it presents good arguments and I generally agree with it.
As for me personally, I'm not from the US, so I'm less invested in the conflict (though don't get me wrong, I see Trump-like politicians as a huge problem because anything they do within foreign policy may directly affect the rest of the world very negatively), and any time I see someone using tactics like the JD Vance couch fucking, it makes me want to distance myself from that community immediately. It's just another aspect of the endless blue team vs red team conflict that's annoying and tiring and seems to bring out the worst in people on both sides even though I see one side as clearly worse.
I also have doubts about it being effective. It caught on, but I've only ever seen people repeating it in spaces that are already strongly anti-Trump and anti-Vance.
I think the "JD Vance is a couch fucker" meme is effective at in-group cohesion, something that has been deeply lacking on the left, but not at converting the theoretical undecided centrist. But...
I think the "JD Vance is a couch fucker" meme is effective at in-group cohesion, something that has been deeply lacking on the left, but not at converting the theoretical undecided centrist. But strengthening in-group cohesion can be very valuable at a time when a party is trying to make sure everyone will pull together.
Anyone who is undecided in this election is not some enlightened sage making choices based on the rational arguments being put forth by candidates. Those people have already picked their sides. An...
Anyone who is undecided in this election is not some enlightened sage making choices based on the rational arguments being put forth by candidates. Those people have already picked their sides. An undecided in a political context like this is either
A.) Intensely cross-pressured because they are struggling to make a decision on things like whether being able to say slurs in public is worth losing their health insurance over.
B.) So checked out that they are barely cognizant of what’s going on in the election.
In both those cases diminishing your political opponent by making him look like a skeevy little gremlin is exactly what you need to do to win that centrist over. Group A because it helps push them into making the right choice by triggering their gut level disgust response, which is already clearly overdeveloped, in your favor. Many people are herd animals. They make choices because they think it’s the “done thing” and they decide what that is based on the feedback they get from their in-group about how they’re feeling. If everyone’s having fun dunking on JD Vance for being a couch fucker they will bleat like sheep and join in.
And Group B because they’re not paying attention, and establishing a mental model where your opponent is a weird dude with weird fixations primes them in how they interpret new information they get. Like when he talks about how we need to make sure the government tracks the regularity of women’s periods, they are rightly repulsed by it instead of being open to whatever sanewashing spin the GOP will put on his very obviously deranged shit.
You forgot the third group of undecideds, definitely larger than A (likely half the size of B): C.) Have some preference (maybe), but are undecided between showing up to vote and saying “they’re...
You forgot the third group of undecideds, definitely larger than A (likely half the size of B):
C.) Have some preference (maybe), but are undecided between showing up to vote and saying “they’re all assholes, why waste my time?”
There’s no predefined reason to expect Group C to respond positively to in-group signaling or to assume they’d be repulsed.
Those people aren’t usually “undecided” in a polling sense. Those people usually have a candidate preference but may or may not show up based on enthusiasm. This is the purpose of all respondents...
Those people aren’t usually “undecided” in a polling sense. Those people usually have a candidate preference but may or may not show up based on enthusiasm. This is the purpose of all respondents vs. registered voter vs. likely voter screens.
And all indications are it is way easier to drive gotv like that based on negative polarization and threat perception than positive sentiments about the candidate.
This is wishful thinking. It may be true if people actually believed the rumor, but I see no reason to think a large enough number does, and since a common tactic of the MAGA right is to call...
In both those cases diminishing your political opponent by making him look like a skeevy little gremlin is exactly what you need to do to win that centrist over.
This is wishful thinking. It may be true if people actually believed the rumor, but I see no reason to think a large enough number does, and since a common tactic of the MAGA right is to call everything fake news and look for small inaccuracies in any statement so that they can use them as "proof" that the whole statement a blatant lie, the scaffolding for "See? The far left cannot help it and tries to spread another obvious lie!" is already built.
Mind you, I think that JD Vance is so incompetent that it won't help him either.
It’s not a rumor. It’s a joke. It operates on the level of an SNL parody character. It’s not meant to be taken literally, it’s meant to heckle him. Only conspiracy brained morons claim it’s...
It’s not a rumor. It’s a joke. It operates on the level of an SNL parody character. It’s not meant to be taken literally, it’s meant to heckle him. Only conspiracy brained morons claim it’s disinformation and even then only so they can set up a false equivalence to the actual disinformation they’re pushing.
Either that or your B group. In my experience (though coming from a different country), B group is as likely to be disgusted by what someone like JD Vance actually said as by something that can be...
Only conspiracy brained morons claim it’s disinformation and even then only so they can set up a false equivalence to the actual disinformation they’re pushing.
Either that or your B group. In my experience (though coming from a different country), B group is as likely to be disgusted by what someone like JD Vance actually said as by something that can be trivially presented as a disgusting lie, depending on what information and where they see (and by definition that's not going to be a lot, certainly not anything close to the whole picture).
No it doesn’t break through the noise. They flood the zone with reprehensible statements such that the media doesn’t know how to handle it. There’s a new one every week so there’s no time for any...
B group is as likely to be disgusted by what someone like JD Vance actually said
No it doesn’t break through the noise. They flood the zone with reprehensible statements such that the media doesn’t know how to handle it. There’s a new one every week so there’s no time for any single bit of outrage to really stick because it’s on to the next thing. This has the effect of flattening and softening the narrative because it becomes “oh he says some out there stuff sometimes” instead of the actual visceral impact of the stuff being said. It took something really egregious, like the “grab them by the pussy” tape, to actually break through the static of other generic bile.
Nobody actually expects anyone to take the couch fucking thing literally. It’s a joke that’s meant to bully and diminish him. It works because he’s a status conscious and approval hungry man who is motivated chiefly by his resentments against society for not giving him the respect he feels he is owed (a common thread in Trumpland).
The goal isn’t to be all things to all people, that’s how you get failed and lame candidacies like Al Gore or John Kerry. Politics is a dominance play as much as anything else. Nobody is out there to talk detailed policy platforms because most people don’t actually have the context or attention span to fully understand them if they hear them (not even the politicians themselves).
The model of politics as some high minded discourse about policy is not something that has ever existed in any large democracy at any point. Even the idealized Athenian forum had people writing plays where they depict political figures walking around stage with giant prosthetic erections or played by known katamites to emphasize their unmanliness.
If I ever can time-travel I want to go back to ancient Athens and show them how in the future big dicks are considered more masculine. Just think of the discourse you'd get out of them on it!
Even the idealized Athenian forum had people writing plays where they depict political figures walking around stage with giant prosthetic erections or played by known katamites to emphasize their unmanliness.
If I ever can time-travel I want to go back to ancient Athens and show them how in the future big dicks are considered more masculine. Just think of the discourse you'd get out of them on it!
Apart from pushing people like me away I think there's also a question of making political culture and polarization worse and whether it's worth the positive effects. Just today I saw some people...
Apart from pushing people like me away I think there's also a question of making political culture and polarization worse and whether it's worth the positive effects.
Just today I saw some people on reddit sharing the clip of John McCain where he stops some old lady on his rally who claims that Obama is not an American and iirc some other untrue personal attacks, and he firmly tells her that Obama is a decent man and a patriot despite strongly disagreeing with his political opinions. And I saw some other people talking about Mitt Romney and the fact that he too seemed like a decent person who may have been treated slightly unfairly by the media in retrospect.
Spreading couchfuckery pushes the political culture further away from this kind of decency that many people reminisce about now that the reality is much worse.
No. JD Vance is a creepy little freak and the couch fucker meme hangs a lantern on the fact that he’s a creepy little freak while doing zero collateral damage to anyone else. A political culture...
No. JD Vance is a creepy little freak and the couch fucker meme hangs a lantern on the fact that he’s a creepy little freak while doing zero collateral damage to anyone else. A political culture that shames menstrual surveillance enthusiasts for being off-putting weirdo who would and should be shunned from any polite society and be kept far away from the reins of power is good actually. There is nothing civil or decent about the political ideology he espouses, so he can go fuck himself, he forfeited any right to that sort of dignity when he made common cause with the people he did.
The fact that he is now actively stoking a pogrom against Haitian immigrants in Ohio has outed him as being even worse of a human being than I initially thought. I was inclined to be much more charitable with him before I saw his conduct this week. I assumed he was merely a venal opportunist who was maybe a bit bumbling, but I now see him as a true believer in an utterly noxious ideology and he will deserve every ill that befalls him. If the worst thing people think about him after this election is that he fucked couches Herr Vance should count himself very lucky.
Honestly you lost me there. Despite acknowledging all the dumb and/or dangerous things he has said (my opinion of him could hardly be lower), I simply see no purpose of discussing politics in this...
JD Vance is a creepy little freak
If the worst thing people think about him after this election is that he fucked couches Herr Vance should count himself very lucky.
Honestly you lost me there. Despite acknowledging all the dumb and/or dangerous things he has said (my opinion of him could hardly be lower), I simply see no purpose of discussing politics in this manner, especially not here. And, like I said above, I have doubts about whether anyone (any meaningful number) actually believes that couch thing.
I don't follow. I don't see the need to treat creepy people with kid gloves and paint them in the best light possible. That seems counter intuitive, if he's creepy freak then what's the harm in...
I don't follow. I don't see the need to treat creepy people with kid gloves and paint them in the best light possible. That seems counter intuitive, if he's creepy freak then what's the harm in calling him that?
It's not about harming him (or about the fucks), I don't care about that either, it's about the debate itself being bearable and useful. I'm just fucking tired of people having the need to signal...
It's not about harming him (or about the fucks), I don't care about that either, it's about the debate itself being bearable and useful. I'm just fucking tired of people having the need to signal how much they dislike someone through insults like that that are frankly kind of childish, in a thread where we all know what kind of person he is.
It doesn't convey anything new or interesting, it's not good for discussion, it's just annoying. I understand when people have the need to release some steam, but holy hell, do it somewhere where it's appropriate. I go to Tildes because because it usually offers relatively reasonable discussions, compared to mainstream internet, no to watch people do something that seems like pure virtue signaling by calling him Herr Vance.
I want to point out that calling it virtue signalling is not a neutral descriptive term, but assuming the intent of the person saying it is to flag, usually disingenuously, to others that they're...
I want to point out that calling it virtue signalling is not a neutral descriptive term, but assuming the intent of the person saying it is to flag, usually disingenuously, to others that they're saying the "right" thing rather than demonstrating how they feel. That doesn't seem the case here and it's ironic for you to use it.
I broadly agree that I don't like the name calling stuff that essentially I think we can all agree is a Trumpism. I also find the couch jokes to be silly but based on genuine feelings. If he's gonna lie about Appalachia, they're gonna say he fucked a couch. It's stupid, and he has not responded to it because it's stupid, and that is the point. It is a pressure release valve for people literally terrified of his victory. And who are done being scolded.
He is literally engaging in all-but-blood libel against predominantly Black Haitian immigrants right now. As the candidate he is spreading false information that targets the most vulnerable among us. He fundamentally disagrees with my right to exist happily and healthily, as a queer, non-binary, non-monogamous, childless, "cat owning", birth control using, public university employed woman. If elected he will do many things to actively harm me, the students I work with, my family of blood and choice.
There is a point past which civility about someone is reasonable, IMO, and demands for it cause a reaction of "do you demand the same of him and all who support him?" Because my rights being revoked further is not civil. "Immigrants are eating beloved pets" is not civil. He has not been civil from the start, and has only grown less so. And the civility that we do manage to speak day to day is by the grace of whichever deity (inclusive of the self) that might be happening to help us control our tongues.
The veneer of civility over horrible things is lipstick on a pig (with apologies to pigs for comparing them to fascists). I am disinclined to pretend he is a reasonably serious person instead of a ridiculous, ass-kissing Trump wannabe that has wedded himself to the fascism of Project 2025 and ill-fitting suits for either his own genuine beliefs or his own personal gain. He's terrifying as a future VP, and I won't give him that power over me or begrudge anyone else for it. I will not strip away his rights, but I will laugh at a couch joke. I think it's more than a fair trade.
Because instead of just letting a couch joke slide by even if you don't like it, chiding people for it leads us to this. Because this is my exhausted and frustrated vent at the idea of needing to be the ones to instill civility at all times. Do you have any idea how many racial and homophobic slurs directed at students I've seen reported by students on campus this year? Not just said, but said to and in front of the victim? I need both hands to count them and that's never happened in the past 8+ years I've been here. It's absolutely tied to the rhetoric used in this election cycle. Sexual congress with the upholstery hasn't come up once.
If we're managing not to just scream in rage and frustration all day long we're doing well these days.
Personally I don't see the meaning as necessarily disingenuous, just as a need to continually announce to others that one is definitely firmly in the right team, without any other criteria (not...
I want to point out that calling it virtue signalling is not a neutral descriptive term, but assuming the intent of the person saying it is to flag, usually disingenuously, to others that they're saying the "right" thing rather than demonstrating how they feel. That doesn't seem the case here and it's ironic for you to use it.
Personally I don't see the meaning as necessarily disingenuous, just as a need to continually announce to others that one is definitely firmly in the right team, without any other criteria (not everyone who feels the same way has this need), but fair point, could have phrased it better.
It is a pressure release valve for people literally terrified of his victory.
I have no problem okay, less of a problem with it if it's called that - it still annoys me, but I can empathize. I have a problem with people rationalizing it as something useful within the political battle because in my opinion their reasoning is not sound enough, that is the real annoyance.
There is a point past which civility about someone is reasonable, IMO, and demands for it cause a reaction of "do you demand the same of him and all who support him?" Because my rights being revoked further is not civil. "Immigrants are eating beloved pets" is not civil. He has not been civil from the start, and has only grown less so. And the civility that we do manage to speak day to day is by the grace of whichever deity (inclusive of the self) that might be happening to help us control our tongues.
The veneer of civility over horrible things is lipstick on a pig (with apologies to pigs for comparing them to fascists). I am disinclined to pretend he is a reasonably serious person instead of a ridiculous, ass-kissing Trump wannabe that has wedded himself to the fascism of Project 2025 and ill-fitting suits for either his own genuine beliefs or his own personal gain. He's terrifying as a future VP, and I won't give him that power over me or begrudge anyone else for it. I will not strip away his rights, but I will laugh at a couch joke. I think it's more than a fair trade.
The question you are asking and answering here is "do I deserve to be uncivil towards JD Vance?". I don't see this question as important or interesting. You probably do deserve it. What I see as important is "how does it affect the situation we're in?".
And my personal tip is "it likely doesn't affect it negatively enough for you to care", so I'm not arguing that you can't let off steam by doing dumb jokes, I think it probably doesn't matter much in this instance. But I definitely do not believe that it affects the situation in a positive way and unless one is very careful about the context, it could definitely backfire in similar situations in the future. Presenting it as something positive and useful is the "lipstick on a pig" in my context, so I am going to argue with people who rationalize it this way.
Making someone laugh can be useful. Reducing wannabe strongmen to weird little guys can also be useful. As someone that didn't like Obama's crowd size joke despite laughing at it in the moment, I...
Making someone laugh can be useful. Reducing wannabe strongmen to weird little guys can also be useful. As someone that didn't like Obama's dick joke crowd size joke despite laughing at it in the moment, I get it.
But Harris demonstrated that it's quite possible to have successful political outcomes by (in her case subtly) mocking your opponent.
I'm not gonna say it's a great social good. Bring me back to a time without this rhetoric on their part and I'll likely reconsider my stance. You mentioned Romney and McCain previously and I don't think media was too hard on them in retrospect, they're more reasonable in comparison but they were still, IMO the wrong choice for the country when they were running. I'm not going to let the Overton window shift on that.
But also, I'm exhausted from having to walk a civility (and free speech) tightrope at work and trying to protect my students (my "kids") from so much this year, less than a month into school. Literally just trying to keep some kids alive this fall and not sure I'll be successful. So apologies for my own rant. Not for the content so much, that's all accurate to how I feel, but for it being pointed in your direction.
I’m sure V17 was referring to the flagrancy of the “fucks” used by NaraVara I too have no desire to discuss politics in such a vulgar manner, regardless of how much I might dislike someone
I’m sure V17 was referring to the flagrancy of the “fucks” used by NaraVara
I too have no desire to discuss politics in such a vulgar manner, regardless of how much I might dislike someone
That just screams old person or super religious to me. I guess that might be off putting it you're talking about it in the board room, but in my experience white collar/blue collar it's pretty...
That just screams old person or super religious to me. I guess that might be off putting it you're talking about it in the board room, but in my experience white collar/blue collar it's pretty normal for a lot of "vulgar" words to be used.
This is the Internet, if the fucks aren't being directed at anyone on the conversation then it's fine imo.
To me it's like ignoring the entire point in a comment because they made a typo.
I doubt anyone here believes that JD Vance hasn't earned a bevy of well-placed ad hominem attacks. In fact, I'd say that they'd be far more effective on him than on Trump—there's a reason right...
I doubt anyone here believes that JD Vance hasn't earned a bevy of well-placed ad hominem attacks. In fact, I'd say that they'd be far more effective on him than on Trump—there's a reason right wingers call him Teflon Don. That said, "couch fucker" ain't it.
At its core, the specific phrase "couch fucker" just isn't funny. It certainly elicits chuckles the first time someone hears it, but the fact it's still in public discussions today has relegated it to the realm of unfunny quirky humor. If we're using the metric that adult life is high school on repeat, this is the pinnacle of laughs for wannabe middle school mean girls who haven't yet figured out how their more adept peers are so effective at bullying.
Despite its memorability, it has no real sting.
I can't think of a single person who wasn't already planning to show up and vote D who this actually influences.
For the passively MAGA, it's not the kind of insult that would make them think that Trump picked a loser and, by extension, that Trump has lost his touch (so they may as well stay home). Non-MAGA Republicans mostly seem to have left for other reasons.
It's not that good at a character assassination to drive turnout from those who would vote blue if voting were mandatory but can't be bothered to show up. "Kamala will open the border and let immigrants take your job and marry your daughter!" works in a way that "He's the kind of dude who fucks sofas" does not. To focus on that crowd, specifically target the women by discussing abortion at breakfast, abortion access at lunch, and reproductive rights at dinner.
It probably doesn't drive any more spite Vance votes than any other ad hominem would, but it gives me the gut feeling of the kind of phrase that drives the marginal voters to say, "They're all assholes, anyway," and stay home more than other character attacks.
The fact that it very clearly has legs to have persisted as long as it has and that it has clearly gotten under his skin empirically refutes all these assertions.
The fact that it very clearly has legs to have persisted as long as it has and that it has clearly gotten under his skin empirically refutes all these assertions.
3-6 are basically matters of taste or unsupported assertions about how imagined marginal voters will react. I think it’s a misunderstanding of how political communication works to imagine people...
3-6 are basically matters of taste or unsupported assertions about how imagined marginal voters will react.
I think it’s a misunderstanding of how political communication works to imagine people are concerted evaluating each individual bit of input on its own merits. All this stuff mostly just creates a vibe that preconditions how people receive information. If people think both sides are bad they’re already preconditioned to think that a joke about fucking couches isn’t what created that situation, their own cynicism and marinating in media that’s fixated on drawing both sides equivalences did. That’s not anything anyone can change.
The important thing is the vibe. People like a happy vibe and dislike a bitter/resentful vibe. The jokes create a beneficial vibe regardless of how it makes censorious types feel about the state of “the discourse.” Nobody cares about that but pundits.
Yes, it's helpful at this moment when Republicans are defecting from Trump to provide them examples of Republicans being publicly civil to their opponents. That opens up space for Republicans to...
Yes, it's helpful at this moment when Republicans are defecting from Trump to provide them examples of Republicans being publicly civil to their opponents. That opens up space for Republicans to choose a different way. But if your opinion of the two parties is limited to couchfucker jokes on one side and a couple of rare clips of retired or deceased Republicans being civil, you're basing your opinions on a very small sample of behavior.
I don't think that's what happened - or specifically that this was the purpose, it may have happened on accident. The McCain clip is getting posted with some regularity even outside election...
Yes, it's helpful at this moment when Republicans are defecting from Trump to provide them examples of Republicans being publicly civil to their opponents.
I don't think that's what happened - or specifically that this was the purpose, it may have happened on accident. The McCain clip is getting posted with some regularity even outside election season and people reminiscing about how the political culture used to be more bearable is not limited to these examples that I provided, it also a problem studied by the academia, written about in the press etc.
But if your opinion of the two parties is limited to couchfucker jokes on one side and a couple of rare clips of retired or deceased Republicans being civil, you're basing your opinions on a very small sample of behavior.
I don't believe I said anything that would imply that.
I'd like to point out that Trump, at the debate, doubled down on saying that Kamala's rally attendees ate people's pets, despite there being clear evidence that it was all a hoax. Is random...
I'd like to point out that Trump, at the debate, doubled down on saying that Kamala's rally attendees ate people's pets, despite there being clear evidence that it was all a hoax. Is random internet memes about Vance being a couchfucker really that outlandish? If Kamala's website started selling coffee mugs with Vance going anime-eyes on a couch, it'd still be less extreme IMO.
I do wish Kamala took that opportunity to say "Gee, it's awfully sad that this old man believes everything he sees on the internet."
Sometimes that tactic works, sometimes it doesn't. The key is context and knowing your audience. When you're in a group of "intellectuals", yes, it tends to be the most optimal strategy. In other...
Sometimes that tactic works, sometimes it doesn't. The key is context and knowing your audience. When you're in a group of "intellectuals", yes, it tends to be the most optimal strategy. In other groups where humor and brief argument is valued, not so much. Like most everything else, context matters, I don't think it's something that needs much thought.
Anyone who calls themselves an intellectual but says they are undecided about who they want to vote for in this Presidential election is lying to you. The only questions are which of those two...
Anyone who calls themselves an intellectual but says they are undecided about who they want to vote for in this Presidential election is lying to you. The only questions are which of those two claims they’re lying about and why.
I went to the laundromat recently, and I had the displeasure of having to listen to MSNBC, in particular the PA political ads for MSNBC. They always did one ad and then the other. I shall...
I went to the laundromat recently, and I had the displeasure of having to listen to MSNBC, in particular the PA political ads for MSNBC.
They always did one ad and then the other. I shall paraphrase.
A: Kamala Harris, we're seeking to build a better tomorrow and codify healthcare rights for women.
B: Kamala Harris is a dangerous commie who is going to set criminal immigrants into your children's homes.
The ads will speak to viewers differently depending on their current situation and already held beliefs. An offer of a fork to climb out of a frying pan only makes sense if the giant didn't put...
The ads will speak to viewers differently depending on their current situation and already held beliefs.
An offer of a fork to climb out of a frying pan only makes sense if the giant didn't put you in to begin with, and if you don't believe that fork is going to its mouth.
Sometimes I think this landscape of widespread apathy/distrust is the normal result of decades of bipartisan misinformation campaigns against the public on issues of environmental science plus trickle down economy. I may not believe ad B, but it might better align with my existing emotions of distrust and level of pain.
Lets be real: Conservatives dominate the disinformation campaign by a country mile. Even adversial nation-state disinformation propaganda seem like saints compared to the likes of Rush Limbaugh...
Lets be real: Conservatives dominate the disinformation campaign by a country mile. Even adversial nation-state disinformation propaganda seem like saints compared to the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Tucker Carlson.
Democrats usually are more cagy-avoidant (courting the conservatives in no small part), while Republicans go full denial and accusatory lies.
Somebody linked out to the alt-right playbook in another thread, which got me in the rabbithole where I watched the cost of doing business. While that is about white supremacy, the overall theme does more or less map onto the Democrat/Republican dynamic as a whole.
I also fell down the rabbit hole, and I have to say those videos contain some of the best explanations of US conservative behavior that I have ever seen. Many "a-ha" moments for me. I'm slowly...
I also fell down the rabbit hole, and I have to say those videos contain some of the best explanations of US conservative behavior that I have ever seen. Many "a-ha" moments for me. I'm slowly making my way through the whole playlist.
Like you say, I think context is key. Within the context of politics and elections, I don't have many qualms with a fight fire with fire approach if the other side has decided to go low. I would...
Like you say, I think context is key. Within the context of politics and elections, I don't have many qualms with a fight fire with fire approach if the other side has decided to go low. I would just generally like to see my candidate not be the one to set the low water mark, but am ok with them responding in kind if that is what will sway the public. That's a tactical matter of winning elections, the same as accepting public opinion being what it is on key issues.
You get at this towards the end, and where I find fault with the "go low" choice is when you look at contexts outside of the tactical realms like elections and politics. E.g., taking that approach on your personal interactions. I've noticed a number of people online slipping into what I would consider intellectual laziness by intentionally engaging in bad faith because they disagree, or they feel they should for activist reasons, or some other ideological reason, and they use the state of political discourse as cover to justify it.
I feel like you might enjoy this video r.e. "They go low, we go high" mentality:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAbab8aP4_A
There was an article on Psych about the Nyaya philosophical school’s approach to this. The limits of good faith debate and the “terms of engagement” needed for debate to be constructive was well known to them, and they posited strategy for dealing with bad faith. It’s sort of a tit for tat framework where if the other person has decided to take the gloves off there’s ways to take the gloves off yourself without giving up your commitment to truth.
Scott Alexander recently wrote an article aimed at conservatives called Some Practical Considerations Before Descending Into An Orgy Of Vengeance. It explores the possibility that Trump wins, the pendulum in the US swings towards conservatism and conservatives get enough social power to definitively cancel people, something that they believe is generally done by (some fraction of) the left and that they might want to use against the left now that they feel they can.
I think the situation and the questions it poses are quite similar to what you're describing here, aimed at the opposite party, and it generally comes to the conclusion that using tactics like this because the other party does is a bad idea. I think it presents good arguments and I generally agree with it.
As for me personally, I'm not from the US, so I'm less invested in the conflict (though don't get me wrong, I see Trump-like politicians as a huge problem because anything they do within foreign policy may directly affect the rest of the world very negatively), and any time I see someone using tactics like the JD Vance couch fucking, it makes me want to distance myself from that community immediately. It's just another aspect of the endless blue team vs red team conflict that's annoying and tiring and seems to bring out the worst in people on both sides even though I see one side as clearly worse.
I also have doubts about it being effective. It caught on, but I've only ever seen people repeating it in spaces that are already strongly anti-Trump and anti-Vance.
I think the "JD Vance is a couch fucker" meme is effective at in-group cohesion, something that has been deeply lacking on the left, but not at converting the theoretical undecided centrist. But strengthening in-group cohesion can be very valuable at a time when a party is trying to make sure everyone will pull together.
Anyone who is undecided in this election is not some enlightened sage making choices based on the rational arguments being put forth by candidates. Those people have already picked their sides. An undecided in a political context like this is either
A.) Intensely cross-pressured because they are struggling to make a decision on things like whether being able to say slurs in public is worth losing their health insurance over.
B.) So checked out that they are barely cognizant of what’s going on in the election.
In both those cases diminishing your political opponent by making him look like a skeevy little gremlin is exactly what you need to do to win that centrist over. Group A because it helps push them into making the right choice by triggering their gut level disgust response, which is already clearly overdeveloped, in your favor. Many people are herd animals. They make choices because they think it’s the “done thing” and they decide what that is based on the feedback they get from their in-group about how they’re feeling. If everyone’s having fun dunking on JD Vance for being a couch fucker they will bleat like sheep and join in.
And Group B because they’re not paying attention, and establishing a mental model where your opponent is a weird dude with weird fixations primes them in how they interpret new information they get. Like when he talks about how we need to make sure the government tracks the regularity of women’s periods, they are rightly repulsed by it instead of being open to whatever sanewashing spin the GOP will put on his very obviously deranged shit.
You forgot the third group of undecideds, definitely larger than A (likely half the size of B):
C.) Have some preference (maybe), but are undecided between showing up to vote and saying “they’re all assholes, why waste my time?”
There’s no predefined reason to expect Group C to respond positively to in-group signaling or to assume they’d be repulsed.
Those people aren’t usually “undecided” in a polling sense. Those people usually have a candidate preference but may or may not show up based on enthusiasm. This is the purpose of all respondents vs. registered voter vs. likely voter screens.
And all indications are it is way easier to drive gotv like that based on negative polarization and threat perception than positive sentiments about the candidate.
This is wishful thinking. It may be true if people actually believed the rumor, but I see no reason to think a large enough number does, and since a common tactic of the MAGA right is to call everything fake news and look for small inaccuracies in any statement so that they can use them as "proof" that the whole statement a blatant lie, the scaffolding for "See? The far left cannot help it and tries to spread another obvious lie!" is already built.
Mind you, I think that JD Vance is so incompetent that it won't help him either.
It’s not a rumor. It’s a joke. It operates on the level of an SNL parody character. It’s not meant to be taken literally, it’s meant to heckle him. Only conspiracy brained morons claim it’s disinformation and even then only so they can set up a false equivalence to the actual disinformation they’re pushing.
Either that or your B group. In my experience (though coming from a different country), B group is as likely to be disgusted by what someone like JD Vance actually said as by something that can be trivially presented as a disgusting lie, depending on what information and where they see (and by definition that's not going to be a lot, certainly not anything close to the whole picture).
No it doesn’t break through the noise. They flood the zone with reprehensible statements such that the media doesn’t know how to handle it. There’s a new one every week so there’s no time for any single bit of outrage to really stick because it’s on to the next thing. This has the effect of flattening and softening the narrative because it becomes “oh he says some out there stuff sometimes” instead of the actual visceral impact of the stuff being said. It took something really egregious, like the “grab them by the pussy” tape, to actually break through the static of other generic bile.
Nobody actually expects anyone to take the couch fucking thing literally. It’s a joke that’s meant to bully and diminish him. It works because he’s a status conscious and approval hungry man who is motivated chiefly by his resentments against society for not giving him the respect he feels he is owed (a common thread in Trumpland).
The goal isn’t to be all things to all people, that’s how you get failed and lame candidacies like Al Gore or John Kerry. Politics is a dominance play as much as anything else. Nobody is out there to talk detailed policy platforms because most people don’t actually have the context or attention span to fully understand them if they hear them (not even the politicians themselves).
The model of politics as some high minded discourse about policy is not something that has ever existed in any large democracy at any point. Even the idealized Athenian forum had people writing plays where they depict political figures walking around stage with giant prosthetic erections or played by known katamites to emphasize their unmanliness.
If I ever can time-travel I want to go back to ancient Athens and show them how in the future big dicks are considered more masculine. Just think of the discourse you'd get out of them on it!
This might offend them more than telling them women can vote hahaha
Apart from pushing people like me away I think there's also a question of making political culture and polarization worse and whether it's worth the positive effects.
Just today I saw some people on reddit sharing the clip of John McCain where he stops some old lady on his rally who claims that Obama is not an American and iirc some other untrue personal attacks, and he firmly tells her that Obama is a decent man and a patriot despite strongly disagreeing with his political opinions. And I saw some other people talking about Mitt Romney and the fact that he too seemed like a decent person who may have been treated slightly unfairly by the media in retrospect.
Spreading couchfuckery pushes the political culture further away from this kind of decency that many people reminisce about now that the reality is much worse.
No. JD Vance is a creepy little freak and the couch fucker meme hangs a lantern on the fact that he’s a creepy little freak while doing zero collateral damage to anyone else. A political culture that shames menstrual surveillance enthusiasts for being off-putting weirdo who would and should be shunned from any polite society and be kept far away from the reins of power is good actually. There is nothing civil or decent about the political ideology he espouses, so he can go fuck himself, he forfeited any right to that sort of dignity when he made common cause with the people he did.
The fact that he is now actively stoking a pogrom against Haitian immigrants in Ohio has outed him as being even worse of a human being than I initially thought. I was inclined to be much more charitable with him before I saw his conduct this week. I assumed he was merely a venal opportunist who was maybe a bit bumbling, but I now see him as a true believer in an utterly noxious ideology and he will deserve every ill that befalls him. If the worst thing people think about him after this election is that he fucked couches Herr Vance should count himself very lucky.
Honestly you lost me there. Despite acknowledging all the dumb and/or dangerous things he has said (my opinion of him could hardly be lower), I simply see no purpose of discussing politics in this manner, especially not here. And, like I said above, I have doubts about whether anyone (any meaningful number) actually believes that couch thing.
I don't follow. I don't see the need to treat creepy people with kid gloves and paint them in the best light possible. That seems counter intuitive, if he's creepy freak then what's the harm in calling him that?
It's not about harming him (or about the fucks), I don't care about that either, it's about the debate itself being bearable and useful. I'm just fucking tired of people having the need to signal how much they dislike someone through insults like that that are frankly kind of childish, in a thread where we all know what kind of person he is.
It doesn't convey anything new or interesting, it's not good for discussion, it's just annoying. I understand when people have the need to release some steam, but holy hell, do it somewhere where it's appropriate. I go to Tildes because because it usually offers relatively reasonable discussions, compared to mainstream internet, no to watch people do something that seems like pure virtue signaling by calling him Herr Vance.
I want to point out that calling it virtue signalling is not a neutral descriptive term, but assuming the intent of the person saying it is to flag, usually disingenuously, to others that they're saying the "right" thing rather than demonstrating how they feel. That doesn't seem the case here and it's ironic for you to use it.
I broadly agree that I don't like the name calling stuff that essentially I think we can all agree is a Trumpism. I also find the couch jokes to be silly but based on genuine feelings. If he's gonna lie about Appalachia, they're gonna say he fucked a couch. It's stupid, and he has not responded to it because it's stupid, and that is the point. It is a pressure release valve for people literally terrified of his victory. And who are done being scolded.
He is literally engaging in all-but-blood libel against predominantly Black Haitian immigrants right now. As the candidate he is spreading false information that targets the most vulnerable among us. He fundamentally disagrees with my right to exist happily and healthily, as a queer, non-binary, non-monogamous, childless, "cat owning", birth control using, public university employed woman. If elected he will do many things to actively harm me, the students I work with, my family of blood and choice.
There is a point past which civility about someone is reasonable, IMO, and demands for it cause a reaction of "do you demand the same of him and all who support him?" Because my rights being revoked further is not civil. "Immigrants are eating beloved pets" is not civil. He has not been civil from the start, and has only grown less so. And the civility that we do manage to speak day to day is by the grace of whichever deity (inclusive of the self) that might be happening to help us control our tongues.
The veneer of civility over horrible things is lipstick on a pig (with apologies to pigs for comparing them to fascists). I am disinclined to pretend he is a reasonably serious person instead of a ridiculous, ass-kissing Trump wannabe that has wedded himself to the fascism of Project 2025 and ill-fitting suits for either his own genuine beliefs or his own personal gain. He's terrifying as a future VP, and I won't give him that power over me or begrudge anyone else for it. I will not strip away his rights, but I will laugh at a couch joke. I think it's more than a fair trade.
Because instead of just letting a couch joke slide by even if you don't like it, chiding people for it leads us to this. Because this is my exhausted and frustrated vent at the idea of needing to be the ones to instill civility at all times. Do you have any idea how many racial and homophobic slurs directed at students I've seen reported by students on campus this year? Not just said, but said to and in front of the victim? I need both hands to count them and that's never happened in the past 8+ years I've been here. It's absolutely tied to the rhetoric used in this election cycle. Sexual congress with the upholstery hasn't come up once.
If we're managing not to just scream in rage and frustration all day long we're doing well these days.
Personally I don't see the meaning as necessarily disingenuous, just as a need to continually announce to others that one is definitely firmly in the right team, without any other criteria (not everyone who feels the same way has this need), but fair point, could have phrased it better.
I have
no problemokay, less of a problem with it if it's called that - it still annoys me, but I can empathize. I have a problem with people rationalizing it as something useful within the political battle because in my opinion their reasoning is not sound enough, that is the real annoyance.The question you are asking and answering here is "do I deserve to be uncivil towards JD Vance?". I don't see this question as important or interesting. You probably do deserve it. What I see as important is "how does it affect the situation we're in?".
And my personal tip is "it likely doesn't affect it negatively enough for you to care", so I'm not arguing that you can't let off steam by doing dumb jokes, I think it probably doesn't matter much in this instance. But I definitely do not believe that it affects the situation in a positive way and unless one is very careful about the context, it could definitely backfire in similar situations in the future. Presenting it as something positive and useful is the "lipstick on a pig" in my context, so I am going to argue with people who rationalize it this way.
Making someone laugh can be useful. Reducing wannabe strongmen to weird little guys can also be useful. As someone that didn't like Obama's
dick jokecrowd size joke despite laughing at it in the moment, I get it.But Harris demonstrated that it's quite possible to have successful political outcomes by (in her case subtly) mocking your opponent.
I'm not gonna say it's a great social good. Bring me back to a time without this rhetoric on their part and I'll likely reconsider my stance. You mentioned Romney and McCain previously and I don't think media was too hard on them in retrospect, they're more reasonable in comparison but they were still, IMO the wrong choice for the country when they were running. I'm not going to let the Overton window shift on that.
But also, I'm exhausted from having to walk a civility (and free speech) tightrope at work and trying to protect my students (my "kids") from so much this year, less than a month into school. Literally just trying to keep some kids alive this fall and not sure I'll be successful. So apologies for my own rant. Not for the content so much, that's all accurate to how I feel, but for it being pointed in your direction.
I’m sure V17 was referring to the flagrancy of the “fucks” used by NaraVara
I too have no desire to discuss politics in such a vulgar manner, regardless of how much I might dislike someone
That just screams old person or super religious to me. I guess that might be off putting it you're talking about it in the board room, but in my experience white collar/blue collar it's pretty normal for a lot of "vulgar" words to be used.
This is the Internet, if the fucks aren't being directed at anyone on the conversation then it's fine imo.
To me it's like ignoring the entire point in a comment because they made a typo.
I doubt anyone here believes that JD Vance hasn't earned a bevy of well-placed ad hominem attacks. In fact, I'd say that they'd be far more effective on him than on Trump—there's a reason right wingers call him Teflon Don. That said, "couch fucker" ain't it.
The fact that it very clearly has legs to have persisted as long as it has and that it has clearly gotten under his skin empirically refutes all these assertions.
2 is the only point close to refuted. Please explain in greater detail how it impacts points 3–6.
3-6 are basically matters of taste or unsupported assertions about how imagined marginal voters will react.
I think it’s a misunderstanding of how political communication works to imagine people are concerted evaluating each individual bit of input on its own merits. All this stuff mostly just creates a vibe that preconditions how people receive information. If people think both sides are bad they’re already preconditioned to think that a joke about fucking couches isn’t what created that situation, their own cynicism and marinating in media that’s fixated on drawing both sides equivalences did. That’s not anything anyone can change.
The important thing is the vibe. People like a happy vibe and dislike a bitter/resentful vibe. The jokes create a beneficial vibe regardless of how it makes censorious types feel about the state of “the discourse.” Nobody cares about that but pundits.
Yes, it's helpful at this moment when Republicans are defecting from Trump to provide them examples of Republicans being publicly civil to their opponents. That opens up space for Republicans to choose a different way. But if your opinion of the two parties is limited to couchfucker jokes on one side and a couple of rare clips of retired or deceased Republicans being civil, you're basing your opinions on a very small sample of behavior.
I don't think that's what happened - or specifically that this was the purpose, it may have happened on accident. The McCain clip is getting posted with some regularity even outside election season and people reminiscing about how the political culture used to be more bearable is not limited to these examples that I provided, it also a problem studied by the academia, written about in the press etc.
I don't believe I said anything that would imply that.
I'd like to point out that Trump, at the debate, doubled down on saying that Kamala's rally attendees ate people's pets, despite there being clear evidence that it was all a hoax. Is random internet memes about Vance being a couchfucker really that outlandish? If Kamala's website started selling coffee mugs with Vance going anime-eyes on a couch, it'd still be less extreme IMO.
I do wish Kamala took that opportunity to say "Gee, it's awfully sad that this old man believes everything he sees on the internet."
Sometimes that tactic works, sometimes it doesn't. The key is context and knowing your audience. When you're in a group of "intellectuals", yes, it tends to be the most optimal strategy. In other groups where humor and brief argument is valued, not so much. Like most everything else, context matters, I don't think it's something that needs much thought.
Anyone who calls themselves an intellectual but says they are undecided about who they want to vote for in this Presidential election is lying to you. The only questions are which of those two claims they’re lying about and why.
I went to the laundromat recently, and I had the displeasure of having to listen to MSNBC, in particular the PA political ads for MSNBC.
They always did one ad and then the other. I shall paraphrase.
A: Kamala Harris, we're seeking to build a better tomorrow and codify healthcare rights for women.
B: Kamala Harris is a dangerous commie who is going to set criminal immigrants into your children's homes.
Guess which one of these rallies the base?
The ads will speak to viewers differently depending on their current situation and already held beliefs.
An offer of a fork to climb out of a frying pan only makes sense if the giant didn't put you in to begin with, and if you don't believe that fork is going to its mouth.
Sometimes I think this landscape of widespread apathy/distrust is the normal result of decades of bipartisan misinformation campaigns against the public on issues of environmental science plus trickle down economy. I may not believe ad B, but it might better align with my existing emotions of distrust and level of pain.
Lets be real: Conservatives dominate the disinformation campaign by a country mile. Even adversial nation-state disinformation propaganda seem like saints compared to the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Tucker Carlson.
Democrats usually are more cagy-avoidant (courting the conservatives in no small part), while Republicans go full denial and accusatory lies.
Somebody linked out to the alt-right playbook in another thread, which got me in the rabbithole where I watched the cost of doing business. While that is about white supremacy, the overall theme does more or less map onto the Democrat/Republican dynamic as a whole.
I also fell down the rabbit hole, and I have to say those videos contain some of the best explanations of US conservative behavior that I have ever seen. Many "a-ha" moments for me. I'm slowly making my way through the whole playlist.
Like you say, I think context is key. Within the context of politics and elections, I don't have many qualms with a fight fire with fire approach if the other side has decided to go low. I would just generally like to see my candidate not be the one to set the low water mark, but am ok with them responding in kind if that is what will sway the public. That's a tactical matter of winning elections, the same as accepting public opinion being what it is on key issues.
You get at this towards the end, and where I find fault with the "go low" choice is when you look at contexts outside of the tactical realms like elections and politics. E.g., taking that approach on your personal interactions. I've noticed a number of people online slipping into what I would consider intellectual laziness by intentionally engaging in bad faith because they disagree, or they feel they should for activist reasons, or some other ideological reason, and they use the state of political discourse as cover to justify it.
Quick thanks to OP and everyone commenting on this topic for creating an oasis of sanity on the www.