Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Twitter Communications Republicans The Internet Technology

New Study Explains Why Trump's 'Sad' Tweets Are So Effective (theverge.com) 272

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: During his campaign and presidency, Donald Trump has used Twitter to circumvent traditional media broadcasters and speak directly to the masses. He is particularly known for one specific tweet construction: he sets up a situation that he feels should inspire anger or outrage, then punctuates it with "Sad!" New research from New York University suggests a reason why this style is so effective: a tweet containing moral and emotional language spreads farther among people with similar political persuasion. The study offered up "duty" as an example of a purely moral word, "fear" as a purely emotional one, and "hate" as word that combined the two categories. The research found that the use of purely moral or purely emotional language had a limited impact on the spread of a tweet, but the "presence of moral-emotional words in messages increased their diffusion by a factor of 20% for each additional word." The impact of this language cut both ways. Tweets with moral-emotional words spread further among those with a similar political outlook, and they spread less with those who held opposing views, according to the research published in the journal PNAS. The study looked at 563,312 tweets on the topics of gun control, same-sex marriage, and climate change, and rated their impact by the number of retweets each one received.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New Study Explains Why Trump's 'Sad' Tweets Are So Effective

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 26, 2017 @09:17PM (#54695817)

    He already knew about the Ten-word answer over a decade ago. And none of the words should have more than three syllables.

    A short pithy rejoinder will accomplish more than a Platonic dialogue, no matter how well composed it might happen to be.

    In fact, the only thing more powerful would be an acronym or emoji.

  • by Zemran ( 3101 ) on Monday June 26, 2017 @09:19PM (#54695823) Homepage Journal
    Does not sound like much of a study. More like a bit of a theory.
    • Does not sound like much of a study. More like a bit of a theory.

      Yep. Researchers find a trend in the data, then rationalize an explanation and present it as "theory".

      I'll propose an alternate explanation for the data.

      People are tired of being told what to think, the outlets have been telling people what to think in the strongest possible terms, and as a result the strength of the words has declined.

      Calling someone a liar, fascist, racist, islamophobe, Hitler, Cthulhu, and everything else was so completely over the top(*) that many people simply got used to the terms, th

      • by Nemyst ( 1383049 )
        I think there's a slight flaw in your theory: nobody, not even his supporters, would call Trump "nuanced". Trustworthy is debatable (though his trustworthiness is eroding at a fairly alarming rate).
      • by guises ( 2423402 )

        Researchers find a trend in the data, then rationalize an explanation and present it as "theory". I'll propose an alternate explanation for the data.

        You're doing this backwards. You start with a hypothesis, then you conduct your experiment. The order is very important. Making a baseless assumption about how the researchers did it is bad enough, but then you just turn around and do the same thing yourself. If you're going to slander these people then you could at least make an effort to set a good example.

      • by swb ( 14022 )

        People are tired of being told what to think, the outlets have been telling people what to think in the strongest possible terms, and as a result the strength of the words has declined.

        I think there is a gap between what people are being told in the media and what they experience on the ground in their every day lives and this gap has reached ridiculous proportions.

        Trump's genius, if you want to call it that, seems to be providing a message that aligns with people's actual experiences. They think Trump is more honest.

        Now, none of this is to say that people's experiences are necessarily accurate or that Trump doesn't spin lies, either (the wall, his so-called healthcare plan, etc), but I

    • by emagery ( 914122 )
      Naw... a study is simply the gathering of data and the elimination of confounding variables and the isolation of statistically significant variables. Theorizing comes next with trying to explain WHY these observations work as observed, to be followed again with experiments to attempt to verify or disprove the theory. You're jumping ahead of all the meticulous work.
  • In other news.... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by kelanos ( 4973983 ) on Monday June 26, 2017 @09:20PM (#54695833)

    The vast majority of the population are semi-brainless machines whose hearts and minds are manipulated from simple word-commands from authority

    Dark but true, deal with it

  • Sad? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Jack_the_Tripper ( 878546 ) on Monday June 26, 2017 @09:22PM (#54695845)
    /. has devolved into mostly partisan bickering. Sad!
  • by Pfhorrest ( 545131 ) on Monday June 26, 2017 @09:25PM (#54695865) Homepage Journal

    "No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Sad!" - CmdrTrumpo

  • by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Monday June 26, 2017 @09:36PM (#54695919)

    "Sad" is a gentle but really provoking form of mocking that seems especially able to get people to react...

    The only say it is "effective" for supporters, but they are ignoring a message also being "effective" if it makes a target group very angry.

    It has allowed Trump to greatly distract the press and other opponents from mountain effective opposition, because they spent a great deal of time in a state of rage, where they are unable to make rational choices and are therefore rendered mostly powerless.

    It's also an effective style because it's really easy for others to pick up and use as well, with increases the power of the term...

  • FTFY (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    During his campaign and presidency, Donald Trump has used Twitter to circumvent traditional media broadcasters and speak directly to the masses without any kind of feedback.

    In short he knows the shit he is shovelling doesn't hold up to questioning, so he avoids all those pesky hard questions. He does this through twitter, surrogates, and Fox News, and probably other ways. Hell he is currently cutting video from daily briefings and even cutting making them live. Basically that is an indirect way to preven

  • by bigwheel ( 2238516 ) on Monday June 26, 2017 @09:44PM (#54695953)

    An other article from today calls Trump a genius.

    https://townhall.com/columnist... [townhall.com]

    "He is able to speak directly to the American people without going through the biased mainstream media filter. The media doesn’t get to ask him slanted questions or pick and choose parts of his press releases to publish. Instead, Trump gets immense control over every single sentence he issues, which are then read by millions of Americans. "

    Regardless whether you love or hate the man, you do have to admit it is an effective way to deal with unfriendly media.

    • by nasch ( 598556 ) on Monday June 26, 2017 @09:53PM (#54695997)

      If the media have been unfriendly to Trump then they must be really really stupid, because they gave him billions of dollars worth of free coverage during the campaign.

    • Genius is a strong word, by which I mean an incorrect one. But it is a clever strategy, which he stumbled upon quite conveniently. If he were the first big personality to discover Twitter, that would have been one thing. This is another thing.

      • Genius is a strong word, by which I mean an incorrect one. But it is a clever strategy, which he stumbled upon quite conveniently. If he were the first big personality to discover Twitter, that would have been one thing. This is another thing.

        Genius is probably accurate.

        No one knows with any certainty, but there were studies during the election about who was smarter. Trump came out somewhere North of 150 in estimated intelligence, as did Hillary Clinton. Both candidates were rated at roughly the same level based on their achievements, scholarship, and writing ability (Trump has a Bachelor of Science).

        Calling him any sort of stupid is belied by the fact that he is a self-made billionaire, successful reality TV star, and the current president of t

      • by mwvdlee ( 775178 ) on Tuesday June 27, 2017 @12:33AM (#54696451) Homepage

        But it is a clever strategy

        It's also an amoral strategy..

        which he stumbled upon quite conveniently

        Manipulating the feeble-minded has always been his business model; it's no accident he uses tricks like these.
        Just look at his university and other businesses. He even owned a casino at one point.

    • As democracy is perfected, the office of the president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people.
      On some great and glorious day, the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House
      will be occupied by a downright fool and a complete narcissistic moron.

      ~H.L. Mencken

      • *sigh*

        Your Trump-bashing is laudable, but could you at least get the quote correct?

        "All the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre — the man who can most adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum. The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."

        ~H.L. Mencken

        You should probably also admit that Mencken was deeply predjudiced, even for his time.

        "I admit freely enough that, by careful breeding, supervision of environment and education, extending over many generations, it might be possible to make an appreciable improvement in the stock of the American negro, for example, but I must maintain that this enterprise would be a ridiculous waste of energy, for there is a high-caste white stock ready at hand, and it is inconceivable that the negro stock, however carefully it might be nurtured, could ever even remotely approach it. The educated negro of today is a failure, not because he meets insuperable difficulties in life, but because he is a negro. He is, in brief, a low-caste man, to the manner born, and he will remain inert and inefficient until fifty generations of him have lived in civilization. And even then, the superior white race will be fifty generations ahead of him."

        ~H.L. Mencken

    • by dbIII ( 701233 )

      Regardless whether you love or hate the man, you do have to admit it is an effective way to deal with unfriendly media.

      Isn't a funny that Assange got called an attention seeking media whore by about half of the people here for doing something similar a couple of times instead of nearly every single day.

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      The media is failing out democracies. A similar thing happened in the UK recently. The media largely ignored Jeremy Corbyn until they were forced to pay attention when an election was called. From that moment on he became wildly popular and make up a 25 point deficit in the polls.

      The person they were listening to, Theresa May, turned out to be some kind of robot that was only pre-programmed with a few simple phrases and she quickly became unpopular and disliked once people were able to see that. Previously

  • by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Monday June 26, 2017 @09:47PM (#54695973)
    because he's the only populist. Everyone else is either like the Republicans and busy telling us why we can't have nice things (austerity) or the Dems and just shouting about how bad the other side is because they're in deep with the same mega corps that bought off the Right. There's an itty bitty tinsy tiny group that rally around Bernie Sanders and that's about it. So when Trump started saying things like healthcare for all and good jobs and education folks rallied around him because, hey, whatdayagot to lose?
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      because he's the only populist. Everyone else is either like the Republicans and busy telling us why we can't have nice things (austerity) or the Dems and just shouting about how bad the other side is because they're in deep with the same mega corps that bought off the Right. There's an itty bitty tinsy tiny group that rally around Bernie Sanders and that's about it. So when Trump started saying things like healthcare for all and good jobs and education folks rallied around him because, hey, whatdayagot to lose?

      Trump is not a populist. He is a con man, pure and simple. I'm not sure he cares about much but winning, not even what he wins. Bernie had a fair amount of support. Trump is technically correct in that he didn't really quite get a completely fair shot, but then Trump said that, not to be fair, but to attack Hillary and all the rest. As far as Trump's healthcare for all and what do you have to lose, well 22 million people could find out soon.

      Simply put, the republicans demonized Obamacare beyond all rea

      • by ffreeloader ( 1105115 ) on Tuesday June 27, 2017 @12:10AM (#54696375) Journal

        Under Obamacare my premiums have gone through the roof. Two years ago, if I would have been able to afford it, my premiums would have been $257/month with a $3500 deductible. That is basically $6600/yr. On top of that my medications would have cost me another $500/month over and above the copays and what the insurance would cover. That is $12,600/yr on less than $25,000/yr income. I'm disabled if you want to know the reason for the low income.

        This year, if I had actually puchased a plan my monthly payment would have been $450/month, with a $6000/yr deductible. Add to that the costs of my medications over and above the copays and insurance coverage of $600/month and it comes to a right tidy percentage of our yearly income. Our yearly costs would have been a minimum of $18,600. That doesn't cost any possible hospitalization costs or what I have to pay for specialists visits which have a copay of $100/visit. I'm supposed to buy that on a total income of less than $30000/yr. In fact, the government will fine me for not having spent 62% of our total income on health insurance premiums, deductibles, and copays.

        Let's look at single payer insurance. California has 39 million residents. They figured single payer costs of $400 billion/yr. That is twice California's current total yearly revenue.
        Let's just say Caliifornia has 40 milllion residents to make a nice round number. And let's figure that the US has 320 million citizens. One is over estimated slightly and the other under estimated slightly. That makes the California population 1/8 of the US population. That means that a conservative estimate of single payer insurance costs for the entire us to $3.2 trillion dollars. That's approximately 75% of current total federal government spending.

        Since the federal government already borrows $4 out of ever $10 it spends just where do you see the money to pay for a single payer system coming from? And just how sustainable are the federal government's current spending habits, let alone with a 75% increase in federal spending?

        Also, do you understand that the current published federal debt of around $20 trillion is peanuts compared to what it owes in unfunded liabilities such as pension plans, future payments for current entitlement programs, etc...? In 2010 our unfunded liabilities were around $120-$140 trillion. Meaning if the feds had cut spending enough to begin paying that down at $1 trillion/yr it would have taken us well over a century to pay our debts? Our current unfunded liabilities have been estimated in the $200 trillion range. In other words paying them off with a federal budget that is $1 trillion in the black ever year would take us two centuries to pay the debt.

        The US is flat out bankrupt.

        • less than $25,000/yr income. I'm disabled if you want to know the reason for the low income.

          $25k/yr is around the median personal income (double it for the average two-person household to get the median household income of around $50k), so if you're pulling that all by yourself and not splitting it with the statistically probable one other person in your household, that's not statistically very low.

          (Compared to cost of living it is, certainly, but that's just because almost everybody is shit poor compared to cost of living).

          • I'm married. My wife lost her job a few years back due to the badly slumping economy and hasn't been able to find a job that pays anything close to what she used to make. She makes less than 50% of her former salary.

            • The economy is doing great. Maybe you are just old and unskilled.
              • LOL. Am I old? Yup. No doubt about it. I've seen a lot of water go under the bridge. However, my situation isn't my gripe. My gripe is what is being done to this great nation of ours, how it is being torn apart at the seams.

                The economy is doing great? Really? shadowstats.com proves we have 22% unemployment, 10% inflation, and have been in a contracting, not expanding, economy since 2001. Yup. A very good economy. Or do you just accept at face value everything the government tells you? You know,

        • by trawg ( 308495 ) on Tuesday June 27, 2017 @04:59AM (#54697043) Homepage

          Let's look at single payer insurance. California has 39 million residents. They figured single payer costs of $400 billion/yr. That is twice California's current total yearly revenue.

          For reference - the UK NHS budget is £120m [kingsfund.org.uk] (USD$153m) for 65m people.

          I can definitely see a US single payer programme costing way more per capita for many years (possibly decades) as the "old way of doing things" is unwound though.

          Since the federal government already borrows $4 out of ever $10 it spends just where do you see the money to pay for a single payer system coming from?

          I mean the obvious place is from the budget of the Department of Defense, right?! Most of the Americans I know (I lived in Ohio for two years) would happily stop exporting shrapnel and high explosives to the middle east if it meant they could get more efficient healthcare services.

          • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

            by Anonymous Coward

            That's good value - $2 per person per year!

            I think you meant £120 billion, not million.

            • by trawg ( 308495 )

              Shit! I did. I got frustrated trying to get the pound symbol working on Slashdot and ended up editing it a bunch of times before finally giving up.

              Please mod parent up - I wasn't trying to dissemble, 120m is obviously way way way too small.

          • I mean the obvious place is from the budget of the Department of Defense, right?!

            Or the pockets of billionaires.

            • You could take every penny every billionaire in the US has and it wouldn't make a dent in our debt. Anyone who really believes this idea that taxing the rich will solve our financial woes is pretty much living in fantasy land.

              You add up all the wealth of all the billionaires in the US and what do you have? $100 billion? That isn't even a tiny patch on our debt, or our yearly spending. We spend 3-400 times that in federal spending every year. Trump's proposed budget is $4.2 trillion including both discr

          • I screwed up the amount; it was supposed to be £120b per the linked reference. That'll teach me to try to battle Slashdot's unicode support with the pound sign.

          • Let's look at single payer insurance. California has 39 million residents. They figured single payer costs of $400 billion/yr. That is twice California's current total yearly revenue.

            For reference - the UK NHS budget is £120m [kingsfund.org.uk] (USD$153m) for 65m people.

            Wow, healthcare for $2 per person per year? That figure cannot be correct. I suspect you need to multiply those numbers by 1000, and even then I'll bet that's not the full cost. £120B would make sense for operational expenses (salaries, supplies, etc.), with capital expenditures (buildings, durable equipment, etc.) accounted for separately.

            • by trawg ( 308495 )

              Yep I typo'ed, sorry :( See my other comments but the correct figure (in the link) is 120b.

          • Well, if you cut 100% of the defense budget and applied it to the costs of single payer health care there would still be, conservatively, $2.6 trillion over and above current federal spending and we would still be borrowing far more than 4 out of ever 10 dollars the federal government spends. The numbers don't lie. It isn't economically feasible.

            And, to tell the truth, I think Britain's health care system is lousy. Surgeons going to lunch with an anesthetized patient still lying on the operating table, n

            • So why can the governments of other countries pay for single payer? (The British are pretty happy with their health care, and your anecdotes on the British health care system make you sound like an astroturfer.) Also, why don't the ACA subsidies lower your costs? A simple search online suggest you should be paying around $100 a month for a silver plan.
        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          The problem is that healthcare is too expensive in the US. In other countries the costs are kept much lower, and government run insurance schemes that don't seek to make a profit help too.

        • Subsidies? (Score:5, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 27, 2017 @07:19AM (#54697471)

          Why aren't you taking advantage of the subsidy? You're earning under 200% of the federal poverty level for a household of two, so you should qualify for a subsidy equal to whatever it takes to reduce the second cheapest silver plan to 6.3% of your income. (Yes, there is still the matter of deductibles and copayments, but at least the premiums would be much more reasonable at around $150/month.)

          Better still, in some states you should qualify for Medicaid on the basis of being disabled. I take it your state is not one of those?

        • by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve ( 949321 ) on Tuesday June 27, 2017 @08:08AM (#54697741)
          I do have some sympathy for you, but your situation is unusual. You're pretty much at the poverty line with your yearly income due to disability and that does mean that you don't have a lot of choices for health insurance. And I hate to break it to you, but your premiums were still going up without Obamacare. Premiums went up constantly before it. They've gone up with it. They'll go up when AHCA gets passed. There's nothing in AHCA that's going to be of benefit to you.

          I'm not accepting your numbers for US single payer insurance costs, which were no doubt pulled out of some biased right wing article you found. I also hate to break this to you, but single payer insurance is inevitable. It's the only thing that can ever bring costs down other than providing catastrophic only coverage that pays for nothing else, which would be a big problem for you. And even providing catastrophic only coverage is likely to see premiums go through the roof because the insurance companies will get less money that way in premiums, so they'll make it up by raising costs.

          Your argument about the government paying pension plans is bogus because the US government back in the 1980s moved away from a pension plan system for federal employees and for over 30 years now all federal employees have had to have 401K plans. They have no choice.
        • by Waccoon ( 1186667 ) on Tuesday June 27, 2017 @08:08AM (#54697747)

          Personal anecdote, but my coverage through MassHealth is the best coverage I've ever had. Coverage and premiums vary tremendously from state to state. Compared to Mass, the ACA health care available in New Hampshire is a disaster, I hear. That's not the case in my neck of the woods.

          Let's look at single payer insurance. California has 39 million residents. They figured single payer costs of $400 billion/yr. That is twice California's current total yearly revenue.

          Well, duh. Our health care system is purely for-profit, which means taking advantage of sick people... people in duress who are desperate to get better and know that if they don't, they can't work and are basically fucked. No insurance plan will help if a US medical procedure costs 15-20 times as much as the same procedure in Germany. Most nations in the world have aggressive price control for their health care specifically to prevent profiteering. But here in the US, that's called punishing success, so of course we can't do that, and pharmaceutical companies rank among the most profitable companies in the world because it's a comfortable racket if you can get your foot in the door.

          Sad!

    • So when Trump started saying things like healthcare for all and good jobs and education folks rallied around him because, hey, whatdayagot to lose?

      I think you have Trump confused with Bernie. Trump told 'merica that he has a really great healthcare plan, the best. So good, in fact, even he isn't sure of the details - but it will be great! On jobs, Trump claimed he'd bring them back. He wasn't very clear on this one either; perhaps he meant reanimating the corpse of the late Steve Jobs. Maybe he wants to build one of those sarcophagus things [wikia.com] from Stargate SG1 [slate.com]. That would take care of healthcare and bringing back Jobs. Of course, there were also

  • by SoftwareArtist ( 1472499 ) on Tuesday June 27, 2017 @12:03AM (#54696363)

    Yes, emotionally manipulative language is effective, but it doesn't have to be. Train yourself to look for it, and then choose to reject it. When you see someone appealing to your emotions instead of your reason, recognize what they're doing and call them out for it. That's especially true when they're saying things you agree with, because that's when you're most vulnerable to manipulation. We each have the responsibility to reject people who try to manipulate our emotions and tell them that's not acceptable. We also have the responsibility not to stoop to doing it ourselves. If your arguments are sound, they can stand on their own without emotionally manipulative language. If you find you can't make your arguments sound convincing without it, that's a pretty good clue there's something wrong with them.

    • Yes, emotionally manipulative language is effective, but it doesn't have to be. Train yourself to look for it, and then choose to reject it. When you see someone appealing to your emotions instead of your reason, recognize what they're doing and call them out for it.

      They ought to be teaching this to school kids.

      • by zifn4b ( 1040588 )

        Yes, emotionally manipulative language is effective, but it doesn't have to be. Train yourself to look for it, and then choose to reject it. When you see someone appealing to your emotions instead of your reason, recognize what they're doing and call them out for it.

        They ought to be teaching this to school kids.

        Right on! They should teach this right alongside money management and debt which is also missing from the school system oddly.

    • Train yourself to look for it, and then choose to reject it.

      But Right-Wingers won't do it. Sad!

    • by zifn4b ( 1040588 )

      Yes, emotionally manipulative language is effective, but it doesn't have to be. Train yourself to look for it, and then choose to reject it. When you see someone appealing to your emotions instead of your reason, recognize what they're doing and call them out for it.

      Better yet, learn the mechanics of it and out-play your opponent strategically at every turn without them knowing you're doing it until they are frustrated to no end. Nothing produces more butt hurt than that. It's quite satisfying too.

      • Depends what your goal is. If you're trying to "beat" your "enemy" by any means necessary, preferably causing them pain along the way, that might work. Unless it turns out they're better at it than you. But if you're more interested in promoting rationality, encouraging intelligent discourse, and getting people to work together to solve problems, that's not a very good strategy.

        • by zifn4b ( 1040588 )

          Depends what your goal is. If you're trying to "beat" your "enemy" by any means necessary, preferably causing them pain along the way, that might work. Unless it turns out they're better at it than you. But if you're more interested in promoting rationality, encouraging intelligent discourse, and getting people to work together to solve problems, that's not a very good strategy.

          I appreciate your sentiment, it doesn't make it any less wishful thinking. Rational discourse only works if all parties involved are engaged solely in rational discourse as a means for conflict resolution. If another player in the game is not engaged in rational discourse they will take advantage of the other players solely relying on rational discourse. The rational discourse exclusive players are assuming this sort of ideological high ground but they tend to get demolished by refusing to engage in the

    • If your arguments are sound, they can stand on their own without emotionally manipulative language.

      They'll stand on their own and not do anything. If you want to actually persuade people you need to connect to emotion. Psychologists have known for decades that people decide in seconds based on emotion, then find reasons to justify their decisions to themselves.

      The only time pure reason wins is when you have no emotional investment. For instance choosing the right hard drive upgrade: What's the capacity, performance and price? That's all you need to know. But choosing a car? Most people (in America at lea

      • If you want to actually persuade people you need to connect to emotion.

        The only thing I'm trying to persuade people of is to be more rational and reject arguments based on emotion. If I tried to do that by manipulating their emotions, I would already have failed before I even started. Sure, emotional manipulation is effective. I also view it as very destructive. And we can learn to be more rational. But you aren't going to even try unless you view rationality as a good in itself, not just as a tool to be used or discarded at your convenience.

  • The idiots who wrote this study are just regurgitating an obvious fact while making fun of Trump to whore for grant money. Sad.
  • But are they effective? I suppose it depends on what the aim is - the way I read it, the study shows that they are only effective if he wants to sow discord and create division - his supporters become a bit more sycophantic, the rest of us are sickened even more. But didn't he talk about uniting all Americans and making America great again? Division only diminishes the nation.

  • The tweets are effective because they push the right buttons of the chronically naive right-wingers who still sit in their cabin waiting for the mine to open that Reagan's flawed policies closed (ironically, Trump proposes the same dimshit). Add to that all the children that were left behind by Bush's flopped education legislation and we end up with many who have only an attention span of 144 characters paired with a sixth grade education level. Sadly, same seems to apply to Trump. That guy is just ridiculo
    • Yes because there are no stupid democrats anywhere, and I forgot that every democratic president has been a perfect Saint and has done no wrong. This my team go shit is getting sickening. It WILL be the demise of the United States of America. Mark my words.

  • Can someone please tell me who this Trump guy is, why he's important and WTF are "tweets"?

    Thank you.

  • by AlanObject ( 3603453 ) on Tuesday June 27, 2017 @08:31AM (#54697917)

    Trump's tweets are so "effective" because he was running for and then held the most powerful office on the planet and he is totally incompetent in every way except for media manipulation. And even there he routinely shoots himself into the foot.

    The very fact that he is anywhere near this office much less in it is totally appalling to anyone who has the slightest familiarity with the facts. That group will re-tweet because of the seriousness of the consequences of the election are quite real to them. Add to that his base that loves him will retweet him no matter what. The "effectiveness" has little to do with the structure of his utterances.

    Comparing this to anything else for any purpose other than point out how outrageous it is is meaningless.

  • Did you ever get spanked by a parent and have them say "It hurts me more than you" with a genuine facial expression of empathy? It's kind of the same construct. Humans, especially Americans, do this all the time. For those of you coming late to the party, wait until realize how many people have learned this skill to turn negotiating tables effectively as the expense of you, the uninitiated. Ever wonder why Jordan Belfort was so successful in business? We are all slimy to one degree or another because w
  • Just Don't Look [youtube.com]

    This whole "it's a train wreck, I just can't look away" or "I want to see what he'll say next" argument is growing more and more pathetic.

  • One of the things I dislike about the left is that it seems like their leaders use purely emotional appeals (i.e. on gun control) rather than considering evidence and a rational and pragmatic problem solving mindset.

    And one of the things I hate most about Trump is that he's now doing the same for what should have been the conservative side.

    But we have only ourselves to blame, don't we? We keep rewarding these idiots for their fallacious reasoning and their appeals to emotion rather than rewarding princi

Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened. -- Winston Churchill

Working...