Featured Post

When Called Out in Politics or Comedy, Always Escalate

Grant McCracken asks:

An outsider appears in American politics. He or she expresses some deeply felt issue. There’s a brief period of enthusiasm.

Then the reporters go to work. Debates happen. Interviews are given.

And eventually we get a Dorian Gray revelation of the real man or woman.

And hey presto, that’s the end of their candidacy. (And, like a booster rocket, the candidate falls away even as the issue continues. The candidate has served his or her purpose.)

But it’s not happening this time.

Why isn’t happening this time?

I think the answer is related to Tod Kelly‘s thesis about when shaming people works and when it doesn’t:

In Ronson’s book, those who quickly overcame attempts to shame them had one thing in common: They didn’t really care all that much what we thought of them. In some cases this was because they were obscenely wealthy; in others, because they were simply too busy to care what was happening on social media. Some didn’t care because they were clueless. And some didn’t care because — not to put too fine point on it — they were huge, colossal assholes.

Here’s a not-exactly-unique-or-brilliant insight I’ve had about Twitter: Tweets follow a power law distribution. Almost all of my tweets are ignored. I get the impression the median tweet likewise garners no retweets, no favorites, and no replies.

But that’s just the median tweet.

Sometimes someone gets murdered and you tweet to your 20 followers:

I can’t believe so many people care about a dead cop and NO ONE has thought to ask what he did to deserve it. He had creepy perv eyes …

Then you’re famous and you get death threats and New York Magazine writes an article about how horrible everyone has been to you.

The returns to such tweets are asymmetric. And not in a good way. The marginal Twitter user will say something virally stupid before they get around to saying something virally insightful or informative.

The above NY Magazine piece is bad. Among the bad things it does is make a barely explicable Justine Sacco reference.

The story of Justine Sacco’s most famous tweet is the little-known story that everyone knows. And it has something for everyone. It lets us sit back in judgment of those who prematurely judged her. We get to pat ourselves on the back because surely we are always circumspect and charitable with all of the judgments we make unlike those who destroyed Sacco.

But there’s one thing about the standard narrative of Sacco’s tweet. Here is the tweet, yet again:

Going to Africa. Hope I don’t get AIDS. Just kidding. I’m white!

All the articles I’ve read in support of Sacco admit that this is a bad attempt at humor. But that is uncharitable. This tweet is actually funny. No apology was ever owed.

Explaining a joke is the surest way to ensure that it loses its humor, but I don’t see a way around this given that I appear all alone in appreciating Sacco’s humor. The setup makes you tense: “Going to Africa. Hope I don’t get AIDS.” That is an offensive sentiment that reduces Africa to an AIDS-infested jungle. The turn is “Just kidding”, which lets us know we aren’t just dealing with someone transparently racist, but it still leaves you unsettled and uncomfortable that she’s taken us in this direction. “I’m white!” is the punch line and in my opinion is a perfect punch line given the setup. It reframes the “just kidding” from walking back a racist sentiment to doubling down on the racism. The author isn’t a racist who thinks Africa is an AIDS-infested jungle. The author is a racist who thinks she is immune from getting AIDS because she is white. This is too ridiculous to be true. It’s a good joke. It’s obvious self-deprecation at the expense of racists. It’s a funny, solid joke on the proper side of the politically correct fence.

She has defenders, but why doesn’t anyone defend her tweet? I submit it’s because she apologized rather than following it up with something three times more racist.

Louie CK is so good at what he does it’s easy to forget that it’s all an act. He pretends to be a fat, lazy man who masturbates all day. I don’t doubt that these forces exist somewhere within him, but take a look at his actual productivity. He puts out a new hour-long standup special every year with all new material each year. This is maximal output for any comedian in their prime. No one, to my knowledge exceeds that rate. On top of this, he pioneered a new medium of distribution rather than just doing HBO specials like everyone else had been doing.

Simultaneously, he has been the star of Louie on FX. He complains about not knowing how to act, he’s been nominated three times for the Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Lead Actor in a Comedy Series. He writes, stars, and directs. He edits it the whole show himself on his Macbook. Each of these things are ordinarily full time jobs done by separate professionals. It’s a terrific, critically acclaimed show. Meanwhile, he started a production company to produce pilots for new shows.

Maybe he masturbates a lot, but it isn’t preventing him from getting an unreasonable amount of work done. The person he plays as a standup comedian is not the true him. He plays a lazy bum because he knows we’ll relate. The real him is as driven as the guys in the running to be the next CEO of General Electric.

But his deception is seamless.

In the clip, Louie says this is the worst thing he has ever said. But he had said the same exact thing in dozens of other cities. The whole performance is literally called “an act”. It feels like he ad-libbed “Chinese babies”, but he calculated how to let it spill out of his mouth so that it would feel like an ad-lib. “That’s the worst thing I’ve ever said” feels like it’s a parenthetical, off-the-record walk-back. It’s not off the record, and it’s not the worst thing he’s ever said.

This is:

At 2:35, he offers awfulness and follows it up with (1) his own nervous laughter, (2) “uhhhh, Okay. That’sfucked up.”

Remember that this is all planned. If you heard Louie laugh nervously, he wanted you to hear him laughing nervously. Similarly, “uhhhh, Okay. That’sfucked up.” feels as if it’s parenthetical commentary offered up in the moment, but it’s not. He did not read the crowd and decide to offer that acknowledgement of how what he said went over. He said it because he had already decided that he wanted you to hear it.

Let’s say you’re a comedian who is being heckled. How do you handle this?

You could apologize for your act. But that kills the mood. Running a show requires commanding the room. Apologizing shows weakness. If you apologize now, you open yourself to others in the audience to lodge their objections.

You could call security. But this is also weakness if it is your first resort. You aren’t able to handle the room and are getting someone else to do it for you.

I have spent an embarrassing amount of time watching Youtube videos of comedians reacting to hecklers. I find that the best responses lower the social status of the heckler while increasing the social status of the comedian. This holds even if the entire theme of your act is self-deprecation. When dealing with a heckler, you must at least temporarily become the Alpha before resuming your story about how terrible you and your life are.

Some fraction of hecklers are offended by the content offered by the comedian. To my understanding, that’s what happened with Michael Richards and Daniel Tosh.

Michael Richards Spews Racial Hate — Kramer Racist Rant | TMZ

I’m not able to find a clip of the Daniel-Tosh-rape-joke thing.

To my understanding, both of these comedians were called out in the middle of their acts for saying something offensive. The hecklers laid claim to the moral high ground. How do you raise your social status and lower theirs?

Conceding is almost never going to work. Escalating, however, often does. Both Richards and Tosh double down on their offensiveness. This is an attempt to display bravery and reject the notion that morality should be the measure of status. It usually works. In fact, the more you escalate, the better it works. Tosh said “wouldn’t it be hilarious if that woman got raped by five guys right now?” It would have been far less defensible if he asked “Wouldn’t it be hilarious if that woman got raped on her way home from here?” That wouldn’t have been extreme enough to make it clear he was joking. In fact, it doesn’t sound like a joke at all. The former is implausible enough to be sort of funny, which is why he escaped to still have a career.

Richards also escalated. He jokes about lynching, which did get a laugh by the audience. A literal lynching in the middle of a comedy club is implausible enough that it is possible to laugh at. Unfortunately for Richards, that’s the last thing he says that resembles a joke. Most of the clip is just a guy is yelling epithets. Unlike the Justine Sacco tweet, it’s not racist enough for us to believe he is kidding.

Remember that Louie segment above about the Chinese babies? It’s not actually about Chinese babies. It’s about babies with birth defects. If you missed this, don’t feel that bad because I only noticed it just now. His saying “Chinese babies” makes you forget or ignore how offensive it is to make jokes at the expense of babies with birth defects.

Louie uses this technique often. He doesn’t wait for a heckler to call him out. He escalates without being prompted. He says the offensive thing, and then before you can even think about how you should feel about it, he says something that’s would be much more offensive if it had been said seriously. By then you’ve forgotten about the first thing.

It’s been several years since I first saw a baby wearing a “I still live with my parents” t-shirt. I thought it was really funny.

I saw it again in a store recently and suddenly realized that I am quite close to someone who didn’t have the good fortune to live with her parents for the first few years of her life. At some point, she’s going to grow up and perhaps have some extra feelings about that shirt. She probably won’t be offended. It’s still a good joke. But it isn’t only a joke.

If it’s possible for a baby’s t-shirt to bring up conflicting feelings, then practically all humor will be able to offend someone. Maybe there has are no totally unobjectionable jokes. Maybe comedians abhor limits so much because it is a genuinely slippery slope and every joke will hurt someone somewhere. Maybe it’s only consistent to either allow everything or say goodbye to humor.

I laughed at the birth defect jokes.


Donald Trump has said several things that should have sunk his campaign. This flabbergasts everyone, but most of all journalists. One illustration of their exasperation is titled “18 Real Things Donald Trump Has Actually Said About Women”.

I think it’s somewhat related to the reason Louie CK can say the n-word as often as he wants whenever he wants.

There are a lot of different systems in which everyone who participates is unhappy but there is nothing anyone can do to move toward something better without making themselves worse off in the short run.

Our method of electing presidents fits this description. Most journalists would prefer to produce substantive content, but they get more traffic if they notice a candidate saying something that can be interpreted by someone as offensive. Most people would want to consume substantive stories, but partisans get more mileage when they share “you-didn’t-build-that” and “47-percent” quotes.

Everyone already knows what the ideologies of these people are. Everyone knows who are the types of people they like and who are the types they don’t. But we are instead forced to embrace the fiction that their focus-group-tested words matter.

Presidential candidates would probably prefer a system in which they could be more honest with the public and not have to say the same thing in the same pre-approved way every day, but they know media scrutiny means that they need to manicure their speech and not say anything that will spur outrage and require them to make apologies and after-the-fact qualifications.

Everyone is miserable, but it’s a stable equilibrium. No one is incentivized to change.

Donald Trump was asked a question by Megyn Kelly regarding the demeaning things he had said to women. He was getting called out by an offended heckler in the middle of his act. Of course he was going to make a joke about Kelly menstruating. Getting called out requires you to escalate, change the frame of the debate from whether whatever you said was offensive or not, and reduce the social status of whoever spoke while raising your own. He did all of those things with a “it must be that time of the month” joke. The parallels to stand-up comedy became even more prominent when he told a reporter to go back to Univision.

Image by PatCastaldo

Image by PatCastaldo When Called Out in Politics or Comedy, Always Escalate

There have been various revisionist attempts by the media recently to claim that they saw Trump coming all along. But if you want to paint Trump as “the logical culmination of where Republican politics have been headed for many years now”, then kindly point me to the piece you wrote prior to the rise of Trump predicting the rise of Trump. I am not impressed that you were able to sell yourself a story that makes sense after you already seen where we were going.

The media articles I’ve read in the past week indicate that they think Trump has stumbled into a set of policies that most appeals to the id of conservative voters. This fits their mental model of the reasons people win elections. This model is almost certainly unhelpful in analyzing Trump. If Republicans have a problem, it isn’t that they haven’t had access to candidates willing to appeal to their id.

Donald Trump’s candidacy is a referendum on our current system of choosing candidates based on which ones make the fewest verbal missteps. He has done something different by not manicuring his speech. People are doing something different by reporting to pollsters that they support candidates who say things because they believe them to be true rather than candidates who haven’t said anything wrong. It is the media that hasn’t figured out what it’s new role should or could be. If the media’s role it isn’t to extract occasional missteps from hours and hours of  monologuing, then what is their job? Will these changes lead to a new equilibrium? Will it be better? Can candidates who aren’t Trump also just talk to us without worrying about saying the wrong thing and without needing to apologize afterward? Will voters take excuse missteps if they are well-meaning? Could we actually get something positive out of this after all?

Please do be so kind as to share this post.

64 thoughts on “When Called Out in Politics or Comedy, Always Escalate

  1. One of the observations about Trump that I’m still turning over in my head is that what Trump is doing is a tactic that would, theoretically, be available to any of the “real” politicians up there on the stage.

    The counter-argument is that it only works for Trump because he didn’t have to go through the whole “20 years of being groomed for political office prior to this moment” thing, but, prior to Trump, who was the most bombastic candidate out there? I’m thinking it was Christie. He is (or he was) the closest that the Republicans had to a guy who would be able to answer a question with “that’s baloney!”

    And, until Trump, I would have guessed that he’d be one of the people walking the tightrope between being dangerous to Bush and being his pick for VP.

    But, anyway, the (for lack of a better word) “authenticity” that Trump displays is a tactic that, barring charisma deficits, any given person up on that stage could have used.

      Quote  Link


    • Before any politicritters even consider trying to use the Trumpmentum strategy they must first see a demonstration that it works.

      And no, filling up the media narrative for the slowest political months of the year is not the end goal for your average politicritter.

        Quote  Link


    • One of the observations about Trump that I’m still turning over in my head is that what Trump is doing is a tactic that would, theoretically, be available to any of the “real” politicians up there on the stage.a

      No it isn’t, not if they actually want people to *back their campaign*.

      What Trump is doing only works because he’s rich and thus doesn’t care about seducing rich donors.

        Quote  Link


  2. I refuse to give Trump any serious attention until he wins a couple primary states. This, unfortunately, defenestrates the base premise of this interesting post: If Trump flames out in the first three primary states as I expect him to do then voters are not abandoning the conventional way of doing retail politics and this becomes a non-event.

    Oh, and our Todd has basically predicted this Trump phenomena with his posts on the GOP well in advance of it actually happening, though I grant he didn’t put the name “Trump” to it. I wouldn’t either, I’m too cynical to think that I or my party could be this incredibly lucky.

      Quote  Link


      • Forgive me, my Tod, but I feel that you observed that the GOP’s red meat tossing and base overindulgence was dangerous and that it would lead to a reckoning sooner rather than later. If Trump wins a Primary or two or launches a third party bid if that isn’t a hair on fire reckoning for the GOP then I don’t know what is.

        Granted, you didn’t forecast his Trumpness himself, but that’s just self preservation: you’d have been committed.

          Quote  Link


        • It’s true, I think I predicted that the base would become increasingly radicalized — not by ideology, but merely by shock and outrage. I always thought the GOP would find itself on a tiger that would eat its entrails.

          What I did not see coming was the base turing on the media machine; and that it happened so quickly is still astonishing to me. That I absolutely did not see coming, and still I think it’s the important story coming out of this freak show.

            Quote  Link


      • Just got off the phone with a right-wing friend. He, in turn, is just back from a field trip to D.C. where he hung out with other right-wing folks. His report is that they’re all buying guns and ammunition at a much faster rate than they otherwise would, because they fear that Things Are About To Fall Apart. I told him I thought this was deeply silly. And then I got an earful about how the next apparent President can break ten laws without raising a prosecutorial eyebrow that if he or I even bent one of, we’d be in custody without bail. Makes people think that we live in a lawless nation.

        Sensing the likely ineffectiveness of tu quoque, I declined to question whether he was celebrating contemnor Kim Davis’ lawless conduct and instead reminded him that lefties got a little bit silly and paranoid in the last year or so of Bush’s Presidency, and power was transferred peacefully after all. And asked why it is that Scott Walker was flaming out so badly, which got no explanation, and a tepid-to-dismissive grunt when I mentioned Marco Rubio. I’d have thought he’d have been totally in the bag for Ben Carson, but it turns out no.

        With that said, my slightly demented (if actually quite amusing and you don’t dare underestimate his intelligence) right-wing friend proceeded to excoriate Donald Trump and anyone who thought, for a moment, that Trump was in any meaningful sense of the word a conservative. It was a pleasant conversation, because we needn’t agree on everything to remain friends.

          Quote  Link


      • The reason no one predicted what would happen with Trump is that the conflict was between the rich donor class and the base, and everyone expected that to keep getting worse and worse and the donor class having to keep walking the line of finding candidates that will throw red meat but not meaning it. This would, in turn, make the base angrier and angrier until the system melts down and the base revolts.

        It makes perfect sense, and probably is what would have happened.

        And while we carefully watched and waited for this, everyone just sorta forgot it was possible for a candidate to *completely ignore* the rich donor class if they, themselves, were rich enough.

        Oops. We have all failed at our ‘out of box thinking’ exercise for the decade.

          Quote  Link


  3. I just opened up Wikipedia and had it go to a random page1 and I got this

    Malignant narcissism is a psychological syndrome comprising an extreme mix of narcissism, antisocial personality disorder, aggression, and sadism. Often grandiose, and always ready to raise hostility levels, the malignant narcissist undermines organisations in which they are involved, and dehumanize the people with whom they associate. [¶] … malignant narcissism could include aspects of narcissistic personality disorder as well as paranoia. The importance of malignant narcissism and of projection as a defense mechanism has been confirmed in paranoia, as well as “the patient’s vulnerability to malignant narcissistic regression”.

    …and I thought of Teh Donald.

    1 Of course I didn’t do that. I went there quite deliberately.

      Quote  Link


  4. I gotta agree with North that I don’t think Trump will get far, but not because he is bombastic, but rather because that is all he is.

    What would happen if there was a candidate that bombastic, that aware of stagecraft, and intelligent with a substantive set of policy proposals?

    God forbid the likes of John Stewart should ever run…

      Quote  Link


  5. I like how you point out how what sounds completely spontaneous coming out of Louis CK’s mouth isn’t the slightest bit spontaneous.

    This is, in fact, what’s going on with Trump. He’s spent tons of time doing media over the years. As was so graciously pointed out to me by a fellow commenter, a great deal of that time was in the WWE, which is chock full of raw emotion and one-upsmanship, along with sly satire of racism (see some of Randy Savage’s work).

    I think you are dead on. Trump has put the outrage/misstep machine on overload, perhaps heading for burnout. That isn’t necessarily a bad thing. He’s also said some stone-cold racist things, and there wasn’t enough of a wink there for me to believe he was kidding. Or maybe I’m thinking it just isn’t racist enough.

    Interestingly enough, I went to a show starring internet/geek celebrity Jonathon Coulton. The opener were these two guys that go by the handle Paul and Storm. At one point in their act, they made a joke about a van with a bunch of Mexicans in the back. They were greeted with a stony silence (this was in San Francisco) Their reply was “Aww, c’mon, it’s SATIRE!” More stony silence. They went on, and the rest of the evening was fine.

    I contend that at one level this worked. The joke bombed, and they didn’t insist that it be funny.

    My other takeaway is that the immigrant fever thing had a history in California. When Pete Wilson was governor, his campaigns had a lot of immigrant bashing in them, and talk about not letting them get driver’s licenses and not letting their children attend public schools. That all got washed away with time, but it left me, and the rest of us in the room, with a bad taste for such satire. What they thought was too over the top to be taken literally is exactly the sort of thing that we, as California voters and residents, had to endure.

    So I get the whole “that’s not funny” thing that happens when satire fails. It’s risky, and a comedian has no right to insist that any particular joke is funny. And Louis CK, interestingly enough, doesn’t.

    I’m not sure that I buy that escalating is the only thing that works, though.

    Most of the best live comedians I’ve seen have a process for dealing with a joke that bombs. For instance Eddie Izzard says in one routine, “Never link those two together again” as an aside, while pretending to write on a notepad.

    I saw Bob Hope as a young man. In his routine he told this joke:

    A grasshopper walked into a bar. The bartender said, “Hey, we have a drink named after you!” The grasshopper says, “Oh, Irving?”

    The audience was made up of Boy Scouts from all over the country, and so the joke bombed, since few of us knew that there was a mixed drink called a Grasshopper.

    But for the rest of the show, whenever a joke didn’t get a big enough laugh, he said, “You see, the grasshopper’s name was Irving”. In a sense, he was saying, “I get it, you didn’t find that funny, and I’m ok with that. I’ll find other things that you do find funny.”

    So while yes, the comic is in charge of the room, and the social dominant, that’s not a static situation. Who’s in charge flitters back and forth since the comic is also there to serve the people who paid to see him or her. And the best comics manage that dialectic.

      Quote  Link


    • I had a similar “grasshopper” problem when I was a kid – I didn’t get this one ’til I was out of college (mostly because I’d blanked it out of my memory for a few years):
      “A giraffe walks into a bar. He says ‘The highballs are on me'”.

        Quote  Link


  6. Maybe North is right and sensible heads will prevail but I am worried about Trump still pulling the Overton Window further to the right even if there is still no chance in hell of him being the nominee. The lesson learned from the whole affair will not be “We need to prevent blowhards and clowns like Trump from running things and getting involved.” The lesson learned will be “I am not going to let someone out Trump me again and dog whistles will cease to be dog whistles.” The GOP will more and more become the party of white resentments.

    That being said, Trump is going on his persona and I do think (and others have observed) that Trump’s persona is appealing to people who are frustrated by the political process and don’t understand that the Executive is not an absolute dictator. They think Trump can come in there with his boss bombast and get Congress (and independent foreign nations) to do things just by saying “Do it.” I think there are basically a lot of people out there who want blowhard rule and are mini-blowhards in their own right.

      Quote  Link


    • How does that Overton Window look on the Continent? Seems to me that European multiparty democracy offers a wider spread of issues and parties and agendas, going both further “right” and further “left” than do the choices available here in the USofA. Somehow, those nations maintain functional democracies.

        Quote  Link


      • Yes and no. There does not seem to be a party (as far as I can tell) that talks about the wholesale destruction and/or privitization of the Welfare State in Europe. The European right-wing seems more statist than the American right-wing. They might be more openly anti-Immigration but not by much. The UKIP seems to have been about keeping the welfare state for English people. I can’t find anyone in the UK who calls for the complete end of NHS or the privitization of their universities.

        They do have a bigger left wing contingent though.

          Quote  Link


      • Do you think there are forces in the US pulling in equal directions? F’rinstance, is Bernie Sanders’ Overton Movement Factor* equal to Trump’s? Or to Ted Cruz’s?

        *Overton Movement Factor** (OMF), defined as [Distance from Political Center] x [Popular Influence]

        **Not to be confused with the Normalized Overton Movement Factor (NOMF), which uses the Effective Political Center in place of the Political Center, where the Effective Political Center is the center point between Average Conservative Opinion and Average Liberal Opinion at the time of calculation. Mathematicians and NYT pundits are collaborating to develop Dynamic NOMF models, but are currently hampered by a lack of processing power as well as difficulties in regression analysis of Trump’s twitter feed.

          Quote  Link


        • They’re going in orthogonal directions, I think.

          I’d be interested in knowing how many have Trump and Bernie as their #1 and #2 (or vice-versa) choices (defined as “would vote for Trump against Hillary” being true at the same time as “would vote for Bernie against Jeb”). My suspicion is that the number is (relatively) high. Like two whole digits high.

            Quote  Link


          • In all seriousness, I think there are multiple axes for the Overton Window: traditional left-right, statist vs. anarchist, establishment vs. anti-establishment (Trump would be the latter, in your estimation, I think?), etc. etc. And individuals need not always move the window in the same direction on every issue. For example, on immigration or menstruation*, Trump is moving it rightward, but on upper income taxes or the refugee status of Syrians, he is moving it leftward.

            Both he and Sanders seem to have anti-establishment element, although Trump more so. I do find it ironic that Sanders, an actual Independent, seems less interested in a third party run than Trump.

            *Ok, not all seriousness

              Quote  Link


    • Except I don’t think the Overton Window has especially moved to the right on immigration, even within the GOP. What seems to me to be the case is that conventional opinion (both GOP opinion and in some cases national opinion) are being declared Trump-like. Successfully, to a degree, in part due to the toxicity surrounding Trump.

        Quote  Link


    • I’m going to join with Will in pushing back on this. I understand that the fear on the left is always that the Right is successfully pulling the Overton window in their direction but in this case I think such fears are badly misplaced. Are Hillary and her party tacking right in response to Trumps waves? No, certainly not. The GOP is but they’re writhing in what’s basically a debilitating fever. For twenty years the GOP politicians have been dousing their base with the political equivalent of weakened viral right wing memes and now those cumulative douses have revived and are roaring through the party’s base. Sure, you can caper around the acceptable rightwing edge of the Overton Window and nudge it in your direction but if you caper too far to the right you repel people and don’t move the window at all; if you go too far right or make too big a splash then the window moves away from you.

      Consider: if Trump or Cruz won the nomination and led their party to a spectacular defeat in the general do you think the GOP would respond to this by tacking further right? I submit that Trump is too ludicrous to move the window. I think that most any Democrats telling pollsters they’re considering voting for Trump are indulging in some project mayhem and will quite contentedly pull the blue lever come the actual voting booth.

        Quote  Link


        • Still not seeing it. Christie has caught a lot of hell for recycling something Newt said twenty years ago, and everyone reacts with horror to ending birthright citizenship, which was on the GOP’s party platform in 1996 and is supported by roughly half of the population or more.

          If anything, it looks to me like conventional Republican opinion is being successfully declared Trump-like and out of bounds more than the other way around.

            Quote  Link


      • Sure, you can caper around the acceptable rightwing edge of the Overton Window and nudge it in your direction but if you caper too far to the right you repel people and don’t move the window at all; if you go too far right or make too big a splash then the window moves away from you.

        The risk of moving the window towards a side is what it always has been: The *current* group of young people trying to figure out their political party will use the politics they grew up with, when the window was in the old place. So if they used to be in the ‘center’, or even barely on one side, but the window moved one way, they now look around when picking parties and find themselves barely on the other side.

        And if that’s where they start, politically, they will start to identify *as* that side, and eventually that will be part of their identity.

        Now, of course, the *advantage* of a party moving the window towards themselves is that people stick with a party, so if the window moves and their position is no long mainstream in their patty, they will often get dragged along and change their positions. The problem is, uh, everyone still gets one vote…making their opinions *slightly* more towards one side won’t actually help anything, or at least isn’t a good trade for *losing* a bunch of new voters who come in and pick the other party instead….for their entire life.

        If a party were to move the window towards them for, for a completely random example, 20 years, this could start having serious problems with younger people, the party having lost a lot of people who *could* have been joined that party if they’d left things alone.

        You know, as a hypothetical.

          Quote  Link


  7. Offensiveness humor only works through a contrast between what people know of you and what is coming out of your mouth. If I am out with friends, and loudly exclaim my undying loyalty to Donald Trump and all he represents, they will tolerantly roll their eyes and change the subject. This works because they have a pretty good idea of how that exclamation matches my real opinions. Stephen Colbert, while not going precisely for offensiveness humor, operates on the same principle. It works because most of his viewers understand the discrepancy between him and his persona. (Reputedly some conservatives love him, not understanding this discrepancy. But that is a different discussion.) Some comedians go all in on offensiveness. Don Rickles was the great master of the form. But it also came through that he wasn’t really like that. (Reputedly he was a teddy bear in real life, and everyone in the business loved him.) If it didn’t, he wouldn’t have been funny. He would simply have come across as a jerk. This was the problem for Andrew Dice Clay. His fans detected that this was just an act, while many non-fans didn’t see it. Sarah Silverman is a more recent example.

    In all of these cases, the audience has context. My friends know me and tolerate my sense of humor. Comedians spend their careers building up both their public personas and the slight wink behind it. Michael Richards ran into trouble because all most people know about him is Kramer. We never imagined that was the real Michael Richards, but we didn’t have any sense of what the real Michael Richards might be. So the racist rant fit as well as anything.

    Which brings us to Twitter. Can I put in here that I really don’t get Twitter? I’m a crotchety old fart. I think that the acme of internet communications was usenet and email lists. It has been downhill since 1995. Facebook mostly bewilders me. But Twitter is designed for people lacking the attention span for Facebook. When you have to work in 140 characters, and any one tweet can be stripped apart to stand on its own, there is little opportunity to build context. So you can’t count on its readers contrasting its content with the real you and taking from this your humorous intent.

    The final strategy is to be so over the top offensive that anyone will understand that this can’t possibly be your real position. This doesn’t work. There are people out there who sincerely believe that what is wrong with the world is there is not enough genocide. And they are all too ready to go on the internet and explain this to anyone who will listen. Sacco’s tweet? Probably intended humorously. But only probably. I don’t know for sure.

      Quote  Link


    • I don’t get Twitter either but as a defense a writer (for money!!!) friend of mine pointed me to a study that showed freelancing artists and writers can increase their visibility and fanbase via social media use but it is exhausting.

      Twitter seems to be mainly good for people who need a public profile and/or the young. All the new social media is seemingly not intuitive for people over 30. I’ve heard and read that people over 25 find snapchat confusing as an example including all the buttons.

      I wonder if it is because under 30 year olds grew up constantly being told that they were their own brand and they had to be out there with exposure and broadcasting/selling themselves.

        Quote  Link


      • Well, I’m including the primaries in the totality of the election season, but I do hope he moves into the next few rounds. Watching “liberals” and “conservatives” and the press react to this is so entertaining.

          Quote  Link


        • Liberals reaction? Has it been anything other than moustache twirling glee? I suppose there’s the humorless contingent that actually gets mad about the nonsense he says and there’s the irrational contingent that actually thinks “If he gets nominated then that means we’ll have him as the President! We’re doomed!!1!!11ONEONE!!”

            Quote  Link


          • I see him as being similar to e e cummings.

            Sure, e e cummings was a genius poet who was able to write breathtaking poems that captured all sorts of aching even as he eschewed what had been, up until that point, traditional practices. He changed everything.

            And then he was followed by the people who looked at his stuff and said “I could do that” and then tried to do that and poetry sucks now. His pretenders were so uniformly awful that, if you didn’t know his context, you might be tempted to hate his stuff at first glance.

            Trump is merely Trump.

            It’s his bastard children that are being birthed all around us even as we sleep that have me consumed with dread.

              Quote  Link


            • People loved Trump when he was merely firing people on television. Now that he wants to fire missiles on television, people are horrified by his personality.

              I suppose we have our priorities in order. At the very least, before our capitalists get to fire our missiles, they have to adopt the correct posture.

                Quote  Link


              • Favorable/Unfavorable numbers.

                Read these and then try to sleep dreamlessly tonight:

                Trump: 38.7/54.1 (favorable is going up, unfavorable is going down)
                Bush: 33.3/50.6 (both are going up, unfavorable is going up faster than favorable, it seems)
                Clinton: 41.1/52.3 (our first, and only, entrant with favorables in the 40’s! favorable is going down, unfavorable is going up)
                Sanders: 35.7/33.5 (our first entrant with a higher favorable than unfavorable, both numbers are going up at what seem to be the same rate)

                  Quote  Link


                    • The clearest message from the numbers Jay posted is that people don’t know who Sanders is (his numbers don’t add up to 70%, while Bush is over 80, with Trump and Clinton over 90). He has behind him a portion (perhaps the bulk, though not the entirety) of Obama’s enthusiastic progressive base from ’08, and then some disaffected middle-of-the-road Democratic voters who don’t particularly like Clinton (and why would they?). In other words, what he shares with Trump and even Carson is that his current numbers reflect the “bored and vaguely disaffected” constituency, which will mostly turn around and get in line when pencil meets ballot, or finger meets touch screen (though Biden would be a different story, I assume).

                      Sanders may be as good as it is possible for a major American politician to be, but to me that says less about Sanders and more about the American system.

                        Quote  Link


  8. Donald Trump’s candidacy is a referendum on our current system of choosing candidates based on which ones make the fewest verbal missteps.

    Well, I like REALLY disagree. If Trump’s candidacy is a referendum on anything, it’s that the conservative base is so fed up with bullshit politics and bullshit politicians that they’ll support … well … Trump!, as a candidate. Granted, a lot of those folks anger seems to me to be constructed and misplaced. But whevs.

      Quote  Link


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *