Are any of you wondering what Dilbert creator and Dunning-Kruger poster boy Scott Adams has to say about last night’s debate? No? Too bad, because I already went and looked at his post on the subject, and it’s too loopy not to share.
Given that Adams, like Trump, is a narcissistic buffoon who’s wrong about nearly everything, it may not come as a shock to learn that Adams thinks Trump won the debate. It’s the reasons he gives for this, er, victory that are a little strange.
Let’s go through them.
First, the self-styled master persuader thinks that Trump scored big persuasion points by responding to the question about his “p***y grabbing” comments by … talking about ISIS.
As Adams sees it:
The persuasion move was that he quickly contrasted that “small” issue with images of ISIS beheadings, and cage-drownings. It was a high ground maneuver, a powerful visual anchor (like the Rosie O’Donnell move from his first primary debate), and a contrast play. In this framing, Trump cares about saving your life while Clinton cares about your choice of words. I realize the issue is Trump’s alleged deeds, not his words. But in terms of debate persuasion, Trump nailed it hard.
I’m not sure what exactly a “contrast play” is, but I feel comfortable in saying that most of those watching the debate saw Trump’s move as a “completely transparent attempt to change the subject.”
Adams then suggested that Trump’s much-discussed habit of following Clinton around the stage and lurking behind her like some kind of movie monster was actually a brilliant persuasion technique:
Clinton’s body language was defensive. Trump is physically larger and prowled the stage. He won the optics.
Adams also seems to blame Clinton for the actions of a random insect:
It only got worse when a fly landed on Clinton’s face mid-answer.
Apparently, flies never land on true ALPHA DOGS like Trump.
Adams also thinks that Trump’s not-really-joking threat to toss Hillary in jail — which many people see as proof that Trump doesn’t understand how democracy works — was actually a super-smart “visual persuasion” move.
His comment about putting Clinton in jail has that marvelous visual persuasion quality about it, and it was the laugh of the night, which means it will be repeated endlessly. He also looked like he meant it.
Adams doesn’t care much about actual policy, and assumes no one else does either, and so he’s somehow convinced himself that Trump deserves more points for occasionally sounding like he almost knows what he’s talking about than Clinton does for actually understanding the issues inside and out.
For Adams, it’s enough that “Trump threw in enough random details about Syria to persuade viewers that he knows more than they thought he knew” — which was nothing.
As for the rest of the issues, well, all Trump needed to do to beat Clinton was to pretend he vaguely knew about some of them.
We don’t know how to fix Obamacare or what to do with TPP. But by acting competent on these and other policy issues, Trump gains more than Clinton in persuasion.
TOTALLY NOT A DOUBLE STANDARD GUYS.
Adams has a few other arguments, but I’m not going to write about them. Instead, I want you to imagine Scott Adams picking his nose and then eating his boogers.
You’ve got to admit that image has a “marvelous visual persuasion quality about it,” huh?
DEBATE WON. I AM THE WINNER. I AM THE MASTER PERSUADER.
“My candidate knows nothing and has no real plans and this is good, actually” – The Dilbert Guy
Adams calls the post “Quick Debate Reactions from Switzerland”
Is he on vacation? Or does he have a whole series of ‘neutral’ Swiss posts?
and “bigly”?
I tried to read the whole article, but I gave up after the first paragraph
Wow. It takes some kind of skill to think that hulking behind a woman and glaring at her like some random perv on the subway right after you’ve just been accused of sexually predatory behaviour makes for good optics. It made me want to reach for the pepper spray, but whatever Adams.
You’d think that the guy who writes the Pointy-Haired Boss would cultivate a modicum of self-awareness.
Alas, and also, alack, it does not appear to be so.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/donald-trump-second-debate-looming-over-clinton-video
I’m wondering why Scott Adams thinks Trump can act competent.
I would like to point out that strategically speaking this post is great for posting on Facebook right after the ones Bina posted about Trump looking very familiar to stalking vctims.
Even Trump’s supporters see it and it looks like shit right after hearing from the victims of such behavior.
@Vicki P
Because Scott Adams has no idea how competent people act.
“Wow. It takes some kind of skill to think that hulking behind a woman and glaring at her like some random perv on the subway right after you’ve just been accused of sexually predatory behaviour makes for good optics. It made me want to reach for the pepper spray, but whatever Adams.”
I honestly don’t know if he is stupid enough to believe what he’s saying, or if he’s just fluffing Trump, because if he didn’t, the scary Trump fans will send him death threats.
By the way, my previous post is an example of weaponizing the anchoring bias. This is not a bad thing because normal decision making is based on rational bias, in this case using the story order to affect how the second story is viewed in order to eliminate the bias that let’s people make predatory behavior sound good (like what I see see in lots of things on FB today). Rational and irrational bias use the same processes.
“In this framing, Trump cares about saving your life while Clinton cares about your choice of words. I realize the issue is Trump’s alleged deeds, not his words.”
Yes, if the issue was Trump’s word choice then yes, we’d have a different argument. But it’s actually not, because actual physical sexual assault is a lot different than using the word “pussy”. I know it’s inconvenient to be defending a sexual predator instead of a person with a colorful vocabulary, but that’s just too bad for you.
Tomato, tomahto.
I think some of the disconnect here has to do with who each candidate was talking to. Trump is talking to white men and has given up on every other demographic. Clinton is going for everyone else and has given up on trying to win over any other white men besides the ones already inclined to vote Democratic in presidential elections. Many white men are not able to consider perspectives other than their own because they don’t typically have to whereas people who not white men are used to having the white male perspective shoved down our throats by most aspects of culture. As a result, white men do not realize when they’re being pandered to and think their perspective is universal unless they train themselves to think critically about race and gender in our culture. It’s really no surprise that Adams and people like him think deflecting away from “pussygate” is a good move. They don’t understand why it was a big deal in the first place and it would never occur to them to see how disturbing Trump’s lurking and looming is. It’s no surprise they think Trump’s racist and xenophobic fearmongering is a brilliant show of strength because it wouldn’t occur to them that not everybody sees black and brown people as scary others.
I truly think that part of the k-12 schooling requirements should be that English classes most include literature by women and people of color and should include some works that weren’t originally published in English.
Ooglyboggles,
If you’re reading this, I just wanted to tell you that I texted that Trumpferatu picture to a friend and she said she laughed so hard she peed a little.
I recently learned of Scott Adams’ failed attempt at a Dilbert-themed line of vegan burritos, so I think it’s appropriate if we just replace every word he types and says with the sounds of horrible bean farts.
Lurking over her like that was “good optics”????
Trump came across as totally out of control: the constant grimacing, interrupting, pacing, and looming behind her like he’s afraid of being out of the camera for even a moment. Clinton came across as calm, reasonable, and focused.
And that’s BEFORE we consider their actual answers to the questions. Can you imagine the right-wing collective tantrum if she’d called HIM “the devil”?
Ugh. Anyone else notice how much his shit is stinking of PUA rhetoric, lately? This sounds just like something Roosh V would write. Right down to the “framing” bullshit.
Also, minimizing sexual assault as a “small issue” is just plain gross. And “contrasting” it against “images of ISIS beheadings, and cage-drownings” is exactly what I would expect of those antifeminists who are always whining about Muslims and how much “worse” they are than westerners…never mind that westerners do and have done the exact same awful things at various times, often in the not-so-distant past.
Or, to put it as they might: “Why are you so mad about some guy’s awkward approaches to getting laid? There are women being stoned to death in burqas on the other side of the world RIGHT NOW! Why aren’t you getting all hysterical about those, like I am?”
@WWTH
I’m glad she liked it! : D
I’ve always felt that Adams is basically a PUA, @Bina. Both he and PUA’s in general (PIG is a fitting acronym for those) fetishize pseudo-scientific rationalizations for their beliefs that women are evil and stupid. Or, no, “controlled by base impulses” and “emotional”, sorry.
Racist HBD jackasses, PUA’s, Libertarians, this Dilbert asshole (Dillhole?); they all drink from the same tepid trough – science as a prop for their pride and their prejudice.
They will put ‘game’ after literally any fuckin word, won’t they?
I gotta start making a list of people whose salty reactions I need to remember to check out on election night.
@Axecalibur, anything to minimize life to a trivial entertainment with these guys. If it’s serious time then they’d have to actually address peoples’ critiques seriously, but if it’s all a game then they can be dillholes to anyone they want and it’s all in fun, right?