The “JD Vance shtupped a couch” thing isn’t a harmless joke. It’s an Orwellian power move.
The original post says he describes the act on pgs. 179-181 of “Hillbilly Elegy.” It takes five seconds to disprove. Ted Cruz’s dad shooting JFK is a more plausible claim by far.
But the obvious falsity is part of the flex. They’re telling us that they can invent something out of whole cloth and then *make it true* by getting enough people to repeat it enough times.
And if you try to deny the false rumor, you just validate it more. The point is to make you feel powerless and accept their lies as your new reality.
It’s a tactic befitting both a totalitarian propaganda machine and a clique of particularly insidious high school mean girls.
Their entire campaign is built on high school bullying tactics.
Which is ironic given that Democrats consider themselves a coalition of outcast GSA/theatre kids revolting against the Chads and Staceys.
Their message to their client groups: live authentically, be yourself, don’t let anyone make you feel “other”
Their message to anyone who rejects their ideology: everything you do is weird and gross, be self-conscious, hate yourself, k*ll yours3lf
I guarantee you every lib quote tweet of this thread is going to be some version of, "Haha look we're getting under their skin."
Which sort of proves my whole point.
In conclusion, enjoy this banger.
"Nobody believes it, bro. It's just a funny meme. Why are you so triggered?"
I guarantee you that the millions of normies who were exposed to it for the first time during Walz's speech yesterday ("See what I did there?") think he was referencing something real.
Most people are not terminally online (thank God).
Full disclosure: I thought the joke was pretty funny when I first encountered it. I figured it was all in good fun. Like the fake “gorilla channel” Trump excerpt from 2018.
What bothered me was when people started deploying it as an attack against Vance the same way they’d have done it were true (thereby implying to the uninitiated that it *is* true).
It’s one thing when internet randos do that. It’s another thing for Walz to do it in a televised speech. I can only assume he learned his catty bullying tactics from his old high school students.
Sure if by "some shitposter" you mean "the Democratic vice presidential nominee."
Everyone in my replies screeching “what about the 2020 election, or birtherism, or denying climate change, or [other supposedly false narrative Republicans peddled]?” is massively missing the point.
People who push conspiracy theories or misinformation tend to at least believe that they’re true. This is far more cynical. The people who repeat the couch story (including Walz) know that it started as a joke and isn’t true. They just want to associate the story with their political opponent in the minds of as many people as possible.
It’s like if high-ranking Republicans in 2017 read this Clickhole article and started telling voters that Obama actually does have 36-inch fingers that he sticks into people’s milk and soup. clickhole.com/here-are-4-pic…
Same thing with the people saying, “You’re a hypocrite because Trump also bullies people!”
Two different kinds of bullying. Trump calls people names. Sometimes he repeats nasty rumors about them.
But to *invent* a rumor that you know to be false and then spread it in order to paint your enemy as “weird” is far more sophisticated (and more evil).
“We admit that we made up a lie about someone we hate doing something gross, but because we hate him, we feel like it might be true. So we’re gonna keep saying it.”
Arguments like this rely on a bizarre conflation of the individual and the state. As a Christian, I'm called to turn the other cheek. But the duty of the state is to punish evil and reward virtue.
Leaders and legislators who base their actions on a false equivalency between good and evil are not being loving or merciful. They're misusing the power with which they've been entrusted.
A government that puts abortionists in prison is not morally equivalent to a government that puts pro-life demonstrators in prison.
To say that they are morally equivalent is to deal in moral relativism.
Exactly. The elites are fully devoted to destroying beauty. To them, the highest achievement is not to create something beautiful. Rather, it is to call something ugly beautiful and get others to do the same.
Our ancestors strove to meet a standard that was external to and higher than themselves. Today, the arbiters of taste celebrate the absence of any such standard. today.com/food/trends/ba…
God is dead. There's no such thing as beauty. There is only the will (or, rather, the whim, since there is no ultimate telos to which the will can direct itself).
I don't understand. How could anyone vote against this? What was the messaging for the "No" campaign?
There's a version of the pro-choice argument that I can grudgingly understand (safe/legal/rare), but if you voted "No" on this, you're actually evil. You deserve to be punished.
The most non-evil motive for opposing this measure that I've been able to find was that it would force doctors to attempt traumatic and invasive life-saving measures on infants who were going to die anyway. montanafreepress.org/2022/09/23/wha…