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.
I’m thinking of taking the day after the election off. Now that I’m starting to feel more confident that Trump is going to lose*, I’m thinking a night spent drinking wine, watching election returns, and watching Trump supporters cry delicious tears.
* Don’t worry. I’m not going to get complacent or encourage others to be complacent.
@Scildfreja
I remember watching the 2012 election returns very anxiously, and when Obama got the required number of electoral votes to become POTUS and he was declared the winner, I burst into tears. I’ve never had that reaction before.
I will have a box of tissues ready this time, along with a bottle of the finest spirits, for when HRC crosses that threshold.
(Either way, I’ll be prepared, is what I’m saying.)
It sounds like someone spinning the Fallacy of Relative Privation by desperately trying to remove the first word.
Aw man, “Dunning-Kruger poster boy” is a good description of Adams – his posts are so painful and frustrating to read because he tries to write as a voice of reason and authority, but so clearly has no clue what he’s talking about.
Dillhole!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRKjZ6dPGmg
(Honestly, these two are more mature than Snotty Scotty & Co.)
Trump doesn’t give a fuck about saving anyone’s life. His talk of implementing official torture programs, of murdering terrorists’ families, of using nuclear weapons, and other heinous acts puts every person who is so much as sympathetic to the United States at risk. It makes for great propaganda. Daesh ought to send him a muffin basket.
As for his stalking around behind Clinton, it was such a transparent attempt to keep himself on camera and the center of attention that it was frankly pathetic. He might as well have been stamping his feet and whining “Pay attention to me now!” I’d wager the man has never won a poker game in his life, except for those he’s played with people who wanted to use him for something. Or with people who were afraid the tiny-handed tyrant would screw them over if they didn’t let him win. The idea of this blowhard being the chief negotiator for our country is truly sickening.
There isn’t much to say about Trump’s “special prosecutor” threats. Resorting to petty threats always, ALWAYS makes one look like a weak-willed loser. Whatever happened to “I wouldn’t tell the enemy my plans,” Mr. Trump?
The only positive thing I can say about last night’s debate is that it didn’t turn into a riot. Towards the beginning, the mood of the crowd was so ugly I honestly thought it might. Both candidates lose points for continuing to Daesh what they prefer to be called. If they must go on and on about them, the least they can do is grant them the respect they deserve.
One last point: Winners don’t whine about mean ol’ moderators reminding them of the rules of the debate. They suck it up and adapt their tactics. Be cool Trumpster, or the real meanies out there will eat you alive.
http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee77/schnookumsfd/Memes/addtext_com_MjM1MDIyNjU2ODY_zpsvwxah5it.jpg
They also don’t complain that their opponent was given more time … because anyone with a working thinking machine knows that someone will fact check that. Guess what! They were almost equal – but he had a minute and a bit more than she had.
As for the stalking. That’s the killer for the women’s vote. There must be some women who don’t know that feeling, purely on a statistical basis. But for most women of any and every age, colour, creed or social group, seeing a man stalk and loom over a woman reminds them viscerally of a creepy man in the street-workplace-public transport-pub-choir-neighbourhood – or several creepy men. Creepy men who made them glad to get home or back to their group of friends or kept them afraid, looking over their shoulder for an evening, or every time they caught a bus or for the whole time they were at that workplace, in that neighbourhood, members of that drama-sport-political club.
No one can talk you out of that instant, visceral reaction. I have no idea whether Trump did or didn’t do it deliberately. Either way, many undecided women would have found their gut deciding for them.
@mildlymagnificent, I’d be totally surprised if he knew what body language he was sending out to every woman in America there. I imagine all he was thinking about is trying to assert dominance. He has absolutely no idea how other people feel – much less how a *woman* feels. Complete narcissism.
(The first time I saw him wander on the shot of her replying like that I had to shut the video off for pretty much exactly the reason you describe)
Wrong. Clinton knew what she was doing. She deliberately positioned herself in front of Trump so he’d be less likely to interrupt her (and also to better connect with the town hall questioners). Trump, on the other hand, was pacing, grimacing, and hanging on to the back of his chair, bent over. When he wasn’t looming menacingly, he looked like he was trying to pass a kidney stone. In terms of optics, Hillary easily outmaneuvered him.
This is exactly what pisses me off the most about this entire election. Here we have one of the most experienced, competent, intelligent presidential candidates ever running against a depraved, know-nothing serial rapist and grifter, and the country is still indecisively stroking its chin, going “Hmmm….” Apparently, no matter how qualified a woman is, if there’s a man who wants the job, no matter how stupid and grotesque he might be, it should automatically go to him. The media lowers the bar for him, and raises it for her, to make it seem like more of a horse race than it actually is. All he has to do is show up, and not projectile vomit on stage, and people like Scott Adams praise him for “exceeding expectations”.
In a rational world, Hillary would have a 20-point lead in the polls.
About his pacing, I didn’t see it the same way you guys did, but I did see it as damaging. And it comes down to personal experiences so ueah, I just want to say that it was damaging to men who haven’t had to deal with stalking expressed that way.
The pacing made him look nervous. It’s a common nervous tick. And that he did so much of it made him look terrified. I ALMOST felt bad for him. It’s like you could see he knew he lost. And the glare just added to it. He was angry because he knew he couldn’t fix the damage he had done, and if the only other thing he can show is fear (we all know he can’t act unphased by anything by now), so he glares. He looks unprofessional and like a whiny kid who just found our they won’t get there way.
And that’s another angle on why it was damming. :p
So just to recap: according to Scott Adams’ infallible persuasiony intellect, in the last debate, Trump was less scary than anticipated (or so Adams claims) which was a good thing. In this debate, he was looming over his political opponent and threatening to throw her in jail when he wins, and that is… also a good thing. Yeah, okay.
Hello.
Well, trying to repeat words you have read/heard somewhere and put them in what you think is the right context does not make the context right. Especially when it is coming from so-called “self-improvement methods”, themselves using words from aknowledged sciences but bending them to match their own messages and contexts rather than the original ones. Sure, that may look nice, that may even give some kind of impression of seriousness and authority, especially when the reader knows nothing about the topic and is eager to believe it, but for someone with a minimum of common sense, that is just wind, vain and pretentious.
Ah, but maybe M. Adams has a diploma in social science ? If this is the case, and it is an official diploma (i.e. not from a diploma mill), then i may agree to read what he writes with more attention. Till that, in my point of view, he just makes a fool of himself.
Have a nice day.
If pacing directly behind someone and looming over them ominously were Presidential virtues, I think we would have already had our first feline President by now.
My cat volunteers. He pledges to eat five meals a day and fall asleep on my legs. I can state with absolute certainty that he will fulfill this pledge.
Also, when my cat rubs up against people, they smile.
Ledasmom, can you guarantee that your cat has never grabbed a pussy?
I thought this video of Trump lurking with the music from “It Follows” sums up how Trump actually came across.
https://twitter.com/markreviews/status/785337721266987012
My cat knows nothing about Russia, and he’s currently putting up a wall in front of my computer screen. He will keep us safe.
My cat grabs pussy constantly. Either the longhaired gray one, who he’s known from a kitten, or the white one, with whom he does not get along. And, let me tell you, he is huge. He would be huger except that we limit his food; as it is, he’s fourteen pounds. And he’s orange.
Actually, my cat may be bizarro-world Trump.
I enjoyed this GIF:
https://twitter.com/darth/status/785553005617684480
Cats don’t loom behind you. They dart out right in front of you so that you almost trip over them.
Well that whole “with” versus “behind” thing can get pretty confusing.
I would give a male candidate the same general advice for reacting to Trump’s hovering nearby as I suggested in various places for Clinton (regrettably after the debate, because who expects someone to be that creepy): Hold one hand over your crotch, and say for the audience, “he’s reaching for my crotch, isn’t he?”