3 ms·

> Someone should distill out what his reasoning is. I'm not huge on Trump (primarily, I find him inefficient at policies, and too prone towards a privacy-secon

> Someone should distill out what his reasoning is. I'm not huge on Trump (primarily, I find him inefficient at policies, and too prone towards a privacy-second approach, and find most of his social views reprehensible), but I think to some extent it's understandable why some people think he was better than the alternative, especially when taking into consideration media bubbles. I took on an experiment during the elections of exposing myself solely to media supportive of different candidates, and it's quite odd how quickly a person can get into a mindset of comradery with almost all of the non-social conservative candidates. The media outlets that you're subjected to as a follower of a politician can easily sway you into being absolutely enamoured with a person. For example, pre-election day, /r/The_Donald was a fairly odd place. Not odd in that it was overly hostile and hypermacho, but in that it was very supportive of almost every type of supporter. If your main source of news was from that subreddit, for example, Trump was quite heroic sounding - they sliced his speeches to highlight a person of which loved all people, just hated the extent of how extreme the world was getting in regards to social justice. If your main source of news was from a more liberal outlet, the opposite happens - he's racist, homophobic, vitriolic and evil. Even if he does something they support, like advocating for guns to be taken away, he gets crucified. The supporters on the conservative side tended to see this, compare it to their own version of things, and consider that there's no winning with the liberal side. The liberal side, again, does the opposite. * * * With Hillary in particular, she had far from a clean record, and arguably a less clean one than Trump did at the time, and does currently politically.

mpfundstein 9y ago
Great story. I can confirm much of your experiences and observations. I truly think /r/T_D and pepe/4chan will become a rich source for future studies. They truly took online media and mass manipulation to a next level.
- Mononokay 9y ago
  His rallies were truly captivating, and it's amazing how efficient he was at getting audience-approval. I found myself, a person who very much disagrees with his views, rationalizing his views with him to an almost uncomfortable level.
  - r00fus 9y ago
    Perhaps the 100% media saturation helped to legitimize his views? He got probably 4x the media mentions as any other candidate despite e.g. Bernie getting more people at almost all rallies. By captivating, do you include the calls to violence and dog-whistling?
    - Mononokay 9y ago
      > Perhaps the 100% media saturation helped to legitimize his views? I'd say what helped him most were his speeches, no doubt. The media saturation was a side benefit. He had an absolutely captivating way of giving a speech. > By captivating, do you include the calls to violence and dog-whistling? I would like to clarify, here, that captivating and able-to-be-rationalized are not the same thing. Hitler's speeches were captivating beyond all doubt, but were not possible to rationalize. Trump's speeches were captivating, and occasionally easy to rationalize. Did you listen to any? There were very few, if any, calls to violence - dog whistling wasn't an overt thing from the speeches I observed, either. The vast majority of his speeches he focused upon two sole things - former prosperity, and regaining that prosperity. He directly mirrored Reagan's campaign, down to the slogan - "Make America Great Again." A typical outline of a Trump speech goes: [INTRODUCTION - He starts giving "I love you all!" kiss-ups.] [PLEA FOR THOUGHT - He gives the story of someone who serves as a conduit to gain sympathy for one of his causes, usually someone hurt by an undocumented immigrant, or a military member.] [EXCLAMATION OF SUPERIORITY - He combats the Republican candidate's talking point of the week, along with the leading Democratic candidate, whilst telling how he has a plan to do better. He does this very well, even if the argument itself doesn't hold up.] [EXCLAMATION OF PATRIOTISM - He begins going on about how he loves his country, and how it has potential to be wonderful again. Ironically, this was the most disillusioning part of his speeches for me.] [EXIT, I LOVE YOU ALL - He again tells the audience how wonderful they are, and how he's happy they support him. He then leaves in an occasionally bravado way.] * * * It's rather simple, but he perfected the formula very quickly.

mpfundstein 9y ago

Great story. I can confirm much of your experiences and observations. I truly think /r/T_D and pepe/4chan will become a rich source for future studies. They truly took online media and mass manipulation to a next level.

Mononokay 9y ago
His rallies were truly captivating, and it's amazing how efficient he was at getting audience-approval. I found myself, a person who very much disagrees with his views, rationalizing his views with him to an almost uncomfortable level.
- r00fus 9y ago
  Perhaps the 100% media saturation helped to legitimize his views? He got probably 4x the media mentions as any other candidate despite e.g. Bernie getting more people at almost all rallies. By captivating, do you include the calls to violence and dog-whistling?
  - Mononokay 9y ago
    > Perhaps the 100% media saturation helped to legitimize his views? I'd say what helped him most were his speeches, no doubt. The media saturation was a side benefit. He had an absolutely captivating way of giving a speech. > By captivating, do you include the calls to violence and dog-whistling? I would like to clarify, here, that captivating and able-to-be-rationalized are not the same thing. Hitler's speeches were captivating beyond all doubt, but were not possible to rationalize. Trump's speeches were captivating, and occasionally easy to rationalize. Did you listen to any? There were very few, if any, calls to violence - dog whistling wasn't an overt thing from the speeches I observed, either. The vast majority of his speeches he focused upon two sole things - former prosperity, and regaining that prosperity. He directly mirrored Reagan's campaign, down to the slogan - "Make America Great Again." A typical outline of a Trump speech goes: [INTRODUCTION - He starts giving "I love you all!" kiss-ups.] [PLEA FOR THOUGHT - He gives the story of someone who serves as a conduit to gain sympathy for one of his causes, usually someone hurt by an undocumented immigrant, or a military member.] [EXCLAMATION OF SUPERIORITY - He combats the Republican candidate's talking point of the week, along with the leading Democratic candidate, whilst telling how he has a plan to do better. He does this very well, even if the argument itself doesn't hold up.] [EXCLAMATION OF PATRIOTISM - He begins going on about how he loves his country, and how it has potential to be wonderful again. Ironically, this was the most disillusioning part of his speeches for me.] [EXIT, I LOVE YOU ALL - He again tells the audience how wonderful they are, and how he's happy they support him. He then leaves in an occasionally bravado way.] * * * It's rather simple, but he perfected the formula very quickly.