We've got a few so-called conservatives here on FR brainwashed into that one!
Posted on 08/09/2016 8:49:28 AM PDT by Ellendra
If you have been following this blog since last year, you know I have been saying Trump was playing 3D chess against 2D opponents. And by that I meant Trump was using powerful persuasion techniques while the rest of the field was flailing away with facts, reason, policy details, and other things that don’t change anyone’s mind.
Then, in late spring, at about the time that Bernie Sanders’ flamed out, Clinton ascended to the 3D playing field and stayed there, thanks to help – I assume – from one or more weapons-grade behavioral psychologists who joined the cause. For the past few months both candidates have operated in the third dimension, where emotion and persuasion rule, and facts are irrelevant.
Recently, Clinton has been winning in the third dimension. She abandoned her 2D rational arguments about experience and policies and started hypnotizing voters into believing they have the power to predict the future if they try hard enough. And in that imaginary future, Donald Trump is incinerating the world with nuclear fire because he can’t take advice, or he’s a narcissist, or he’s unstable, or he’s Hitler Version 2.0. This approach is excellent persuasion, and it is working for Clinton.
Don’t expect to hear anything honest or true come from the mouths of either candidate for the rest of the campaign. Both candidates are skillfully building imaginary castles and make-believe demons out of your cognitive dissonance and your confirmation bias. You’re seeing the best-of-the-best persuaders (and helpers) operating at the highest level. Facts and policies are sitting this one out.
If you are an American voter, in all likelihood you are deeply hypnotized already and don’t know it. I mean that literally. At this point, nearly every voter is in a deep hallucination. I could give you lots of reasons why I know that, but you wouldn’t believe any of them because cognitive dissonance won’t let my words penetrate your bubble of non-reality.
But I’ll try, just for fun.
If you support either Clinton or Trump for president, you are under the illusion that it makes sense to hire a 70-year old (approximately) for the most important job in the land – and one that could last eight years. That would be absurd in any other hiring context. But you are brainwashed to believe it is perfectly fine in this case. It isn’t.
Likewise, if you think either Clinton or Trump have good policy ideas, that is evidence that you are brainwashed. As a civilian, you have no idea which policies are better for the economy, or trade agreements, or immigration, or for battling ISIS. But you think you do because you have been brainwashed into believing that voters can know that sort of thing. They can’t. The candidates don’t know either.
But my favorite way to identify brainwashed citizens is by the way they start comments on social media. The brainwashed start with one of the following openers and then go on to offer either sarcasm or no argument at all.
Look for these tells to identify the brainwashed:
1. LOL
2. Wow.
3. So…
4. In other words…
5. OMG
6. HAHAHAHA!
7. (Any personal or professional insult)
8. Hitler analogy
To be clear, these are only tells if they don’t accompany some sort of rational counter-arguments or facts. If you see LOL followed by a link to a good counter-argument, or to credible studies, that’s not brainwashing. It is only when you see the tells presented as a substitute for reason that they signal brainwashing.
Another tell for brainwashing involves people hallucinating an opponent’s opinion and using sarcasm to mock their own hallucination. Example: “LOL. So you’re saying we should put all poor people in jail? Wow.”
Look for those tells in others. But more importantly, look for them in yourself.
Excellent article, although the Donald is getting very serious lately.
He left out, “I’m a registered republican but...”
To a very large measure, this is actually an indictment on democracy in general. If the means of selecting leadership is based on persuasion in a manner such as that posited (I am not making the argument that they are not, merely a hypothesis here), then we are left with the conclusion that this is a means of selection that is highly undesirable as the results are most likely to be that the greatest and most unethical demagogue will be the successful candidate.
Identifying the brainwashed:
Anyone who votes for Clinton
Wow
LOL! So, in other words, Adams think Trump is worse than Hitler. Wow.
/HAHAHAHA
We haven’t had 65% eligible voter turnout since 1908.
The dumbest 10% of eligible voters supposedly decide all national elections, the ‘swing voters.’ The ones who do somehow manage to vote, but vote one way and then another and usually can’t give a rational reason for why they vote like that. The swayable. They could be swayed by the perceived popularity of a candidate like a well attended rally or an opinion poll, the physical appearance of a candidate, a debate flub, or what a talking head said about a debate. And this isn’t even getting the ones that are swayed into not voting at all based on some poll or a debate or whatever.
So no matter the result of an election, pub or dem, conservative or liberal, the dumbest who manage to vote are the ones that actually decided it. That’s pretty grim, when you think about it.
Now add mass social media to the equation. Does the % of swayable voters go up or down? Does voter turn out go up or down?
Freegards
Adams is nutty as a fruitcake.
It does give a person pause regarding our entire system. Something that is that knowable, that controllable, that unrelated to the point of the decision - who creates policy - is not a moral system. Is there a “moral” system? Maybe, maybe not. But the outcomes in the American system have become contrived. And entirely disassociated with the stated point of the exercise - self-government.
I’m maybe getting too old and cynical...but if I knew what I know now when I was a young man, I do believe I would be agitating for overthrow at this point.
“Likewise, if you think either Clinton or Trump have good policy ideas, that is evidence that you are brainwashed. As a civilian, you have no idea which policies are better for the economy, or trade agreements, or immigration, or for battling ISIS. But you think you do because you have been brainwashed into believing that voters can know that sort of thing. They can’t.”
Speak for yourself, Scottie. What a self-involved jerk!
We've got a few so-called conservatives here on FR brainwashed into that one!
And it’s been that way since the late 1700s. We just haven’t been taught all of the nasty things that really went on in history class.
However, if you pay attention, someone’s been posting newsprint from 120 years or so again recently. Some of the information there is quite revealing.
(By the way, it’s also been that way since ancient times. The more things change, the more they stay the same.)
“The strong will do what they will; the weak will suffer what they must.” — Thucidydes
(Hopefully I spelled that right.)
Calling her Hitlary is like an analogy.
I think you just made his case.
It doesn't take a genius to see that the policies of the past haven't worked.
If you are old enough, you can see how the jobs vanished after certain trade deals, how bombing the hell out of radicals/dictators seems to shut them up for a time ( until a weak US leader takes over from a powerful one, then the enemy rears it's ugly head again)... If you live along the border, you can see what the illegals have done, If you work in IT, you can see what H-1b visas have done...If you live in Idaho, you know all about the muslim refugees and the problems they bring...
No, Scott, some civilians do have an idea of what's going because they don't live behind a gated fence or live in a Hollywood bubble...
How about it Tokyo Rose, what are doing to keep Hillary out of the WH? Posting crap that says she and Trump are so similar that there is no difference is a tacit backing of Hillary.
If you ain't donating to Trump and taking time to Donate to FR while you are at it, you might want to look your own self in the mirror and ask what you stand for and what you stand against.
I tend to think if there was higher turnout, that would only increase the % of swing voters. The ones that at least have an expressible idea of their own politics probably already vote at a pretty high turnout.
The weird thing about having a higher swing vote % is that over time it could possibly be either be a very bad thing, or a very good thing. We could have ended up with a liberal dystopia or a conservative utopia by now. But it would be decided on who could sway the swayable the most times in a row, like flipping a coin and getting tails 6 times in a row or something.
There might be no way around this, given any system where everyone’s vote is worth the same.
Freegards
I never trust anyone who accuses others of being brainwashed. They never consider the possibility that they are the ones who are brainwashed. What makes them immune to the thought control we poor schlubs are apparently so susceptible to? I don’t buy it.
I like your point, that paragraph rubbed me the wrong way too. Same with the idea that if you are in your 70’s you are too old to get into politics.
We had plenty of chances to pick a young guy but Trump wiped the floor with them. Now, looking at Bill Clinton I believe that a case could be made that he is not going to be much help to Hillary going forward. In fact, based on family experience, he seems likely to slide down that hill in the next eight years and Hillary may have a dementia case in the WH. As far as Trump is concerned, he is making a good case that he is as young as he feels. I would trust him with his health more than Hillary who seems likely to be sliding down that slide that we all will face someday. This is not good for Hillary, as she is basing part of her promise on Bill’s history with good economy Etc. (However, I believe Bill’s bacon was rescued by the internet development and not so much the rest of Bill’s program — sometimes you get lucky.) That Hillary may have health problems is also something to consider. Would we want her VP taking over?
Scott is an interesting writer and I believed anyone who could write Dilbert Cartoons has nailed a lot of human psychology so what he says about persuasion is good to know. I too believe that both Hillary and Trump are adept at picking up on those things that push buttons. They both have buttons that can be pushed too. However, Trump’s vision for the country is far superior to Hillary’s and with the provision that I am probably brainwashed, I believe Trump can do the things he is promising and so can Hillary. She is promising four more years of Obama and Trump is promising lower taxes, fewer regulations, more energy, and no estate tax. His plan will help the middle class and the other classes and I like it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.