639
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2024
639 points (98.3% liked)
politics
19096 readers
3316 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I can't stop thinking about how ingenius the couch joke is. The reference is obvious if you know the meme but oblique enough to maintain plausible deniability, but it doesn't matter because guess what, Republicans can't even complain about this without giving further airtime to the ridiculous meme itself. It is a serrated takedown.
You nailed it... "if you're denying, you're losing"
I'm out of the loop on that one. Can you explain it to those of us who missed it, please?
The Internet is memeing about Vance being a couch fucker. He tried to refute it by saying he never had sex with a couch to completion, which obviously was a self own.
Walz said yesterday that he's happy to debate Vance, if Vance can get his ass off the couch.
Just so you're aware that refutation was also spoofed.
Whole situation remains funny af though. And Walz is adept at twisting the knife.
Man, it's tough to tell what is real these days.
It's really not, people just have shit critical thinking skills.
Circular reporting is just one thing that can make this more difficult. Checkout the cycle in this xkcd:
https://xkcd.com/978/
Ok but people fall for obvious BS all the time that should be easy to spot if you know the first thing about how humans work. Take this example of a "refute"; no one would put out a statement that exposes themselves in such a straightforward, matter-of-fact way. People just aren't like that. Even if someone were to go crazy, it wouldn't manifest like that. And before you say "Well I don't know, people have been doing a lot of weird stuff these days, so I can see it happening!", find me one real example that would be comparable. A public figure, openly and directly acknowledging their sexual deficiencies in a non-joking, official manner.
That's why I say critical thinking skills are shit these days. People never stop and think "Does this make sense?".
Iiiii'm sorry. People aren't like what now? Cause unless you've been living under a small and particularly rocky mountain you would know that the modern Right says dumb and weird shit almost every day. Would a sensible and reasonable person say that? No. We are SO far from sensible and even further from reasonable. In fact at some point we may have even entered into Twilight Zone territory.
No. Stop. None of this "well just look at the state of things" vague crap. Find me. A real. Example. You won't be able to because they don't exist. People don't act that way, even the crazy fucking right. Unhinged attacks and baseless claims on others? Sure. On themselves? Doesn't happen.
It's like you seriously don't even consider what makes sense in reality, you just want to eat up whatever bs conforms to your biases. It's like if you saw a screenshot of a tweet reporting that someone you don't like made a statement saying something like "I'm a big old poop brain and I LOOOOVE sniffing fresh farts!" you wouldn't even question it. Use your head.
Okay, I’ll start.
How about all the really weird shit Trump has said about his own daughter:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-ivanka-trump-creepiest-most-unsettling-comments-a-roundup-a7353876.html
You're being downvoted for point out that people need to fact check more often. I don't understand why.
He is being downvoted for the basis of his reasoning, not the conclusion that he’s derived from it.
JD Vance definitely has couchfucker energy so I can see the confusion.
Uhmmm... what? Why would he say that? Was there actually some truth to the claim that he had sex with a couch, or what?
None. He just did a really bad job refuting it. Honestly, it's such a goofy meme that most adults would just ignore it, but these are Republicans we're talking about. It's incredibly easy to distract them with frivolous stuff.
Even better, there was some website explaining and refuting it all, but then it was taken down lol.
Even better it was the bastion of objective Journalism the Associated Press (AP). They took it down because they can't prove he didn't fuck a couch.
Edit - I love this because it's the same as the old "Did Glenn Beck rape and murder a girl in 1990?". He's never come out to say he didn't.
That's because Beck, while being a faux emotional cryptofascist shit bird, wasn't a fucking moron and knew that the only way to stop someone JAQing off is to ignore them. Only partially because JAQing off was his primary MO.
Were just asking questions!
Yeah, they couldn't prove that Vance never fucked a couch, just that he didn't say he did in a book. But no one was quoting the book anyways, not after the meme started.
There is no way I'm believing he said that without a primary source.
Idk, I can't stop thinking about the end of that Tool song.
It worked well otherwise.