4 ms·

Interestingly, the most successful politicians in recent years have adopted the techniques of old-school internet trolls. It goes like this: 1. Do or say so

Interestingly, the most successful politicians in recent years have adopted the techniques of old-school internet trolls. It goes like this: 1. Do or say something that's a bit edgy and controversial. 2. Pull out a lawn chair as the opposition attempts to stir up a shit storm. 3. Under no circumstances engage with the criticism directed at you, just be somewhere else when anything is coming your way. Never defend or explain anything you've said or done. 4. When the shitstorm is fading, GOTO 1 to ensure all focus remains on you, depriving the opposition of any opportunity to talk about what they want to do. 5. Win the election because your opposition looks completely unhinged and you look unfairly persecuted. It's basically like watching Muhammad Ali in a boxing match. Always has the initiative somehow even when he's ducking punches left and right. If you think this describes anyone in particular, you're probably right; but the point is this playbook has been used basically all over the world with an insane degree of success.

spydum 3y ago
completely agree with this. it's difficult, but the right answer is to ignore all media contexts and criticisms of political candidates AND their actions, and entirely focus on the ground truth of "what" they have achieved in the past, and not the "why". That seems risky, as motives matter, but there simply isn't a way to get an unvarnished assessment of a persons motives from the media (mass or otherwise). even still, there is a risk the only thing you learn they achieved is filtered via the spin factory, or what their achievements were by grift or illegal means, but what's the alternative?
- macintux 3y ago
  Many of the most explicitly trollish politicians make their motives explicit and easy to recognize. I don't think ignoring "why" is a good strategy; I'd rather vote for less-effective people who aren't successfully tearing down civil society.
mid-kid 3y ago
Finally someone spells it out. Ever since the first twitter US president I've noticed a great uptick in politicians and other public figures doing deplorable things for the sake of attention. They'd be publically called out and ridiculed for months on end, and meanwhile you wouldn't hear anything about other people at all. There's nothing I can describe this as other than "trolling", yet people always look at me confused when I mention that. Trolling is just being mean to people online, right? Surely there coudln't be an ulterior motive to it, right? I guess we never learned to stop feeding the trolls.
- oro8 3y ago
  [dead]
- renewiltord 3y ago
  It's old. "There's no such thing as bad publicity". The objective is to use these non-voting high replication nodes to reach your voting public.
  - AndrewKemendo 3y ago
    > use these non-voting high replication nodes to reach your voting public Nice, this really distilled the strategy down to something tangible for me, thanks.
neilv 3y ago
I think two-term US President George W. Bush provided one pre-Twitter but modern example of how this effect could work, maybe not intentionally. Here's a bit from a 2004 NYT piece that stuck with me: > That was explained to me in late 2002 by Mark McKinnon, a longtime senior media adviser to Bush, who now runs his own consulting firm and helps the president. He started by challenging me. "You think he's an idiot, don't you?" I said, no, I didn't. "No, you do, all of you do, up and down the West Coast, the East Coast, a few blocks in southern Manhattan called Wall Street. Let me clue you in. We don't care. You see, you're outnumbered 2 to 1 by folks in the big, wide middle of America, busy working people who don't read The New York Times or Washington Post or The L.A. Times. And you know what they like? They like the way he walks and the way he points, the way he exudes confidence. They have faith in him. And when you attack him for his malaprops, his jumbled syntax, it's good for us. Because you know what those folks don't like? They don't like you!" In this instance, the final "you," of course, meant the entire reality-based community. https://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/faith-certainty-and-the-presidency-of-george-w-bush.html https://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/faith-certainty-... I'd guess this might've been a political effect/tactic that's been known or rediscovered for thousands of years.
- kortilla 3y ago
  > In this instance, the final "you," of course, meant the entire reality-based community. It’s incredible how the author was so dumb to take the exact bait and dig in further.
  - neilv 3y ago
    Yeah, I almost cut that out of the quote here. However, during the Bush 43 administration, it might've been coming from the then-underdog position, so maybe less superior than it sounds now, but still bitingly dismissive. I vaguely remember "reality-based" was a term that was being tossed around, as a criticism of "faith-based" politically-motivated government approaches to problems. I don't know how long that lasted.

spydum 3y ago

completely agree with this. it's difficult, but the right answer is to ignore all media contexts and criticisms of political candidates AND their actions, and entirely focus on the ground truth of "what" they have achieved in the past, and not the "why". That seems risky, as motives matter, but there simply isn't a way to get an unvarnished assessment of a persons motives from the media (mass or otherwise). even still, there is a risk the only thing you learn they achieved is filtered via the spin factory, or what their achievements were by grift or illegal means, but what's the alternative?

macintux 3y ago
Many of the most explicitly trollish politicians make their motives explicit and easy to recognize. I don't think ignoring "why" is a good strategy; I'd rather vote for less-effective people who aren't successfully tearing down civil society.

mid-kid 3y ago

Finally someone spells it out. Ever since the first twitter US president I've noticed a great uptick in politicians and other public figures doing deplorable things for the sake of attention. They'd be publically called out and ridiculed for months on end, and meanwhile you wouldn't hear anything about other people at all. There's nothing I can describe this as other than "trolling", yet people always look at me confused when I mention that. Trolling is just being mean to people online, right? Surely there coudln't be an ulterior motive to it, right? I guess we never learned to stop feeding the trolls.

oro8 3y ago
[dead]
renewiltord 3y ago
It's old. "There's no such thing as bad publicity". The objective is to use these non-voting high replication nodes to reach your voting public.
- AndrewKemendo 3y ago
  > use these non-voting high replication nodes to reach your voting public Nice, this really distilled the strategy down to something tangible for me, thanks.

neilv 3y ago

I think two-term US President George W. Bush provided one pre-Twitter but modern example of how this effect could work, maybe not intentionally. Here's a bit from a 2004 NYT piece that stuck with me: > That was explained to me in late 2002 by Mark McKinnon, a longtime senior media adviser to Bush, who now runs his own consulting firm and helps the president. He started by challenging me. "You think he's an idiot, don't you?" I said, no, I didn't. "No, you do, all of you do, up and down the West Coast, the East Coast, a few blocks in southern Manhattan called Wall Street. Let me clue you in. We don't care. You see, you're outnumbered 2 to 1 by folks in the big, wide middle of America, busy working people who don't read The New York Times or Washington Post or The L.A. Times. And you know what they like? They like the way he walks and the way he points, the way he exudes confidence. They have faith in him. And when you attack him for his malaprops, his jumbled syntax, it's good for us. Because you know what those folks don't like? They don't like you!" In this instance, the final "you," of course, meant the entire reality-based community. https://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/faith-certainty-and-the-presidency-of-george-w-bush.html https://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/faith-certainty-... I'd guess this might've been a political effect/tactic that's been known or rediscovered for thousands of years.

kortilla 3y ago
> In this instance, the final "you," of course, meant the entire reality-based community. It’s incredible how the author was so dumb to take the exact bait and dig in further.
- neilv 3y ago
  Yeah, I almost cut that out of the quote here. However, during the Bush 43 administration, it might've been coming from the then-underdog position, so maybe less superior than it sounds now, but still bitingly dismissive. I vaguely remember "reality-based" was a term that was being tossed around, as a criticism of "faith-based" politically-motivated government approaches to problems. I don't know how long that lasted.