#Hillbullies: MasterPersuader Scott Adams discovers hashtag of doom for Hillary C

Who? Why is this guy relevant?

So, are we world-dominating, all-powerful, all-knowing shrews, or are we ignorant schoolyard bullies with no teeth who drink too much moonshine?

(Also hi and welcome to the new people!

I’m feeling a bit better, much less itchy, and maybe getting a new bed soon, which is a net good overall. Apparently bedbugs can’t get into memory foam, and I’ve been wanting a memory foam bed for a long time because I dislocate joints so easily, especially when I’m not conscious enough to be careful, so… win win! Potentially, anyway. We’ll see what happens. As it is, Small Otter and Significant Otter have been sleeping on the bed in the office, since the Otter works nights they can trade off, and it’s been cold enough that I can deal with sleeping in socks. If they’d stop biting my ears, I’d be much happier, but hopefully they’re largely being starved? Not that I’m going to mention that, because I want a memory foam bed, dammit, not the one that feels like I’m sleeping on jello in an earthquake whenever the cat decides to clean himself at night.

Also I just found a keyboard shortcut by accident that’s very useful! Ctrl + arrow keys takes you to the next/previous word or paragraph!

And it’s possible that in the foreseeable future I could have insurance, which means I could get meds again, including my ADHD meds, which means I won’t spew out long paragraphs of irrelevant nonsense! Wheeeee!!! Ok, done now.)

@Her Grace Phryne: Tool of the Butt-Worshipping, Lesbian-Powered Elite (also cats)
That’s some great news! Hope your new bed and new meds for you. Nonsense, your long paragraphs are a joy to read.

I’m still laughing from when he predicted Trump would win the election in the biggest landslide in american history.

To be fair, if you swap “win” for “lose” then I think his prediction might come true.

That’s some great news! Hope your new bed and new meds for you. Nonsense, your long paragraphs are a joy to read.

Oh, you! *blush* Stop, you’ll just encourage me! (don’t stop) 😀

Currently trapped by a cat; she’s sitting on my arm, the left for a change, and appears to intend to sit there until my arm falls asleep. Which may be soon, as her bony paws and heels and whatnots are perilously close to some large nerves… At least she’s happy and purring, I guess? (She’s the one stole my username from.)

By the way, anyone else on Imzy yet? It seems like a friendly place and growing. http://imzy.com

@brian

Since their ‘persuasion’ technique is just repeating the same bullshit ad nauseum and hoping it will convert other people, I believe the word they should be using is ‘propaganda’, but of course that word sounds scary so they prefer ‘persuasion’.

Good morning everyone.

I have not read all the comments yet, so I don’t know if anybody’s already commented on it but the best part of all this is the blog post he links to in the “cognitive dissonance” tweet:

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/152379707591/a-lesson-in-cognitive-dissonance

I engineered the offending tweet to make the point that ISIS appears to prefer a Clinton presidency. That puts Clinton’s supporters on the same side as ISIS, at least in the narrow sense that they might prefer the same candidate. That creates a conflict between Clinton supporters’ self-image as good people and the uncomfortable reality that they might prefer the same candidate as ISIS. If my point is credible, the predicted result is that it would induce cognitive dissonance and a literal hallucination.

And it did.

Oh, for all that is holy’s sake. The “sociological experiment” excuse? What is this, 1998?

1. Trump gains popularity when people are thinking about terrorism because the public perceives Trump to have the stronger anti-terror position. ISIS would have learned that by watching the reaction to earlier terror attacks this year.

Trump gains popularity when something happens that brings out the public’s inner douchebag. If this is the starting point of your reasoning, this is only going to go downhill from here.

2. It only takes one terrorist with some guns and ammo to capture American headlines.

I would add victims to the equation but, OK, we’ll play on.

3. It is highly likely that ISIS could inspire at least one suicide terrorist in the United States or Europe between now and Election Day if that was their intention.

Because the terrorists are omnipotent and can perform an attack just the moment they feel like it. But OK, I will accept that premise.

4. If Homeland Security thwarts a big terrorist attempt before election day, we would hear about it. So even if an attempt is unsuccessful, we would still get a feel for ISIS’ intentions.

Aaaand this is where “logic” starts to fail.
Mr. Scott Persuader Adams seems to posit that the only reason a terrorist attack can fail is if the guys in uniform save the day by tackling the baddie down among cries of “Curses! Foiled again by Homeland Security!”
If I, say, want to attack somewhere and a surveillance tells me that it’s too dangerous (well guarded, police monitored, logistically complicated, whatever), I will withdraw. In this case the attack was thwarted but nobody gets to trumpet around about it because it was conceived, planned and cancelled under the radar.

5. ISIS probably follows American presidential politics because it matters to them. Clinton and Trump are sufficiently different that it makes sense ISIS would have a preference. For example, Trump is likely to better partner with Russia, restrict immigration more, and focus more on the persuasion game against ISIS. (That last one is what they might fear the most. They too are Master Persuaders.)

I’m beginning to get tired about all the persuasion. Mr. Persuader seems like someone who’s so fascinated with his interest du jour that he’s adamant on seeing it anywhere.

6. ISIS has used Trump’s rhetoric as a recruiting tool, and that makes sense for them while he is a candidate. But a President Trump would actually have power to implement his war preferences, and that’s a different calculation for ISIS. Recruiting is a lower priority than war strategy, so it makes sense that ISIS would prefer the candidate that gives them the best odds – in their opinion – of defending their Caliphate and winning in the long run.

I don’t even know what he’s hinting at here. Help?

7. Given the assumptions above, it follows that if ISIS preferred Trump to be leading the war against them, they could greatly increase the odds of that happening by activating a headline-grabbing attack between now and election day in Europe or the United States. (Here I assume I am not telling ISIS anything they don’t already know.)

I SEE WHAT YOU DID THERE. “Given the assumptions above”, which is not like the assumptions were picked specially to get to this conclusion. St. Thomas Aquinas would be proud.
And the conclusion boils down to “If ISIS preferred Trump they would have attacked. They did not atack. Therefore ISIS prefer Clinton”.

Obviously there are no absolutes in this world. Maybe our immigration vetting and security services are already so good that no bad people have slipped in. But that would mean those services suddenly got a lot better than they were earlier this same year. That’s possible, but unlikely.

“Increased awareness” and “increased diligence due to the US being, oh, IN THE MIDDLE OF A FUCKING PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN” are not factors in Mr. Persuader McPersuaderson’s world.

It is also possible that ISIS isn’t thinking about American elections because they are busy defending the Caliphate. But that means the lull in attacks for the past few months is happening for some reason other than influencing our politics. What other reason can you imagine for them to take a pause?

“I can’t imagine any reason and, therefore so can’t you. Are you PERSUADED yet?”

You can see how this line of reasoning would make Clinton supporters uncomfortable. Terror is high on everyone’s list of national priorities, and no one wants to be backing the same candidate as ISIS. So if my point in the tweet seemed rational to Clinton supporters, it should – in theory – trigger them to hallucinate in order to rationalize-away their discomfort in being on the same team as ISIS (in this limited sense).

And sure enough, hallucinate they did.

That “in this limited sense” disclaimer is so transparent an ass-cover that it’s almost funny.

The most popular hallucination is that some folks see my tweet as “praying for a terror attack” so Trump can get elected. No rational person would believe I expressed a public preference for more terrorism. But that’s what many Clinton supporters saw. They literally imagined (hallucinated) that I would be delighted with a new terror attack. That’s a big hallucination. (Just to be clear, I don’t want any terror attacks for any reason whatsoever.)

For fuck’s sake. You engineer a predictable response and reply with “Ha, ha, I am pulling your strings, I’m so persuadingly clever”. You know what, screw you. Hard.

Sorry for the wall of text.

tl;dr – Scott Adams believes he’s a puppetmaster and is wanking off to his tweet responses. What a sack of shit.

ETA – and he temporarily disabled comments. Way to protect your bubble.

To repeat a point I have made here before: At least part of the time, what Adams means by “persuasion” is literally hypnosis. So I think that he really does believe that he and Trump are planting commands in the minds of people that will be activated at the right moment. This is why polls can be ignored–the majority may believe that they are opposed to Trump, but when they go to vote, they will succumb to an irresistible impulse.

This is the only interpretation under which Adams’s remarks make sense.

@ turan

he and Trump are planting commands in the minds of people that will be activated at the right moment.

I’ve been trying to think of a play on “Mantrumpian Candiate” but I’m rubbish at this. However I’ll put out a call for Buttercup Q Skullpants; they’re really good at coming up with stuff.

As I suggested above, EVERYTHING proves Scott’s point. He will always be proven right. If he ever appears to be wrong, that is because the person who thinks he is wrong is too dim to understand him, or is deliberately distorting his words.

The obligatory Simpsons quote, after Dr. Hibberd refers to Siamese twins:

Lisa: I believe they prefer to be called conjoined.

Dr. Hibberd: And hillbillies prefer to be called sons of the soil, but it ain’t gonna happen.

Approximately half a minute into this clip:

The only good thing to come out of this election are the Daily Dilbert-Guy Melt Downs. I am so grateful to be blessed with this unending comedy goldmine.