Trump Is ‘Weird,’ Vance Is ‘Creepy.’ Finally, the Democrats Start Name-Calling
Trump Is ‘Weird,’ Vance Is ‘Creepy.’ Finally, the Democrats Start Name-Calling
The insults are delightfully petty and supremely satisfying.
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.
You're viewing a single thread.
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.
I've heard it said, and I tend to agree, that there is no paradox if tolerance is understood to be a social contract rather than a moral imperative.
i.e., if you don't uphold your end of the contract (being tolerant) then you aren't entitled to benefit from the contract (being tolerated).
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