Slashdot Mirror


How Donald Trump Uses Twitter As a Weapon of Fear

HughPickens.com writes: Alexander Burns and Maggie Haberman write in the NYT that with his enormous online platform of six million followers, Donald Trump has used Twitter to badger and humiliate those who have dared cross him during the presidential race, latching on to their vulnerabilities, mocking their physical characteristics, personality quirks and, sometimes, their professional setbacks. Trump has made statements that have later been exposed as false or deceptive — only after they have ricocheted across the Internet. For example, Cheri Jacobus, a Republican political strategist, did not think she had done anything out of the ordinary: On a cable television show, she criticized Donald J. Trump for skipping a debate in Iowa in late January and described him as a "bad debater." Trump took to Twitter, repeatedly branding Jacobus as a disappointed job seeker who had begged to work for his campaign and had been rejected. "We said no and she went hostile," Trump wrote. "A real dummy!" Trump's campaign manager told the same story on MSNBC's "Morning Joe." For days, Trump's followers replied to his posts with demeaning, often sexually charged insults aimed at Jacobus, including several with altered, vulgar photographs of her face. (continued) This week, Trump sent out a menacing message on Twitter about the Ricketts family, a wealthy clan of Republican political donors, after it was reported that Marlene Ricketts donated $3 million to a group opposed to Trump's candidacy. "They better be careful," Trump wrote of the family, "they have a lot to hide!" "It's a little surreal when Donald Trump threatens your mom," Marlene Ricketts's son, Tom, later told reporters.

It is not just that Trump has a skill for zeroing in on an individual's soft spot and hammering at it. It is that he sets a tone of aggression against the person, and his supporters echo and amplify it. Jacobus sent a cease-and-desist letter to Trump and his top aide, citing electronic messages that showed the Trump campaign had courted her and not the other way around. "I have been trashed and ruined on Twitter," Jacobus says adding that Trump's lawyers had responded to her letter, but that they had not yet reached a resolution. "At what point does it cross the line into something that's defamatory and might be actionable?" says Parry Aftab, a lawyer who leads the Internet safety group WiredSafety. "At what point does it cross the line into encouraging violence against groups and individuals?"

42 of 532 comments (clear)

  1. how to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Mod articles as trolls?

    1. Re:how to by NotDrWho · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, if you want to do it like Twitter, just create a "Trust and Safety Council" with Anita Sarkeesian on it to make sure no trolls (i.e. conservatives and non-SJW's) can speak. Here are more detailed instructions.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    2. Re:how to by Obfuscant · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How to... mod presidential candidates as trolls?

      By not voting for them. But it seems a lot of people are voting for Donald.

      If this election were slashdot, the posting made by Donald would still be +5 even though it would have a lot of -1 Troll mods to go with it.

  2. Tyranny of the majority by jfdavis668 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, or rather of that party, not always the majority, that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections.

    1. Re:Tyranny of the majority by tnk1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And that is why democracy is a good method for providing legitimacy for government... but it's a shitty way to decide whether something is actually correct.

      Democracy is usually benign because most people want to be left alone and vote that way. We're not usually inclined to be belligerent, and even with the higher rate of wars that the US has fought, it pales in comparison to the past ideas of war as being desirable or even "fun" for the ruling classes.

      Unfortunately, there are times that you can rouse the majority (or large minority) to anger over something, and then you can control them with rhetoric and make them approve something wrong. And that is where democracy can fail, hard. A democracy is quite capable of electing its own dictator, and has done so more than once.

  3. Re:what a laugh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    It's all a joke until you teenage-angst-ridden sociopaths actually get control of the country.

  4. Bad Headline by RabidReindeer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is the Century of Fear. Everybody promotes fear. It's what they use to make us willingly offer up our dignity and our freedom.

    What's being described here is use of media not as a "weapon of fear", but as an all-out weapon of attack.

  5. Timing by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Trump has made statements that have later been exposed as false or deceptive â" only after they have ricocheted across the Internet.

    Oh, NOW you complain about this. Is this not in fact the way the internet has worked since day one? Is this not in fact the very premise the entire news industry is based on?

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Timing by hey! · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The difference is that politicians in the past would stretch, spin, and skew the truth, but tried to stop short of outright breaking it.

      No, that's not the difference at all. The difference is that the Internet allows us to step into a comforting echo chamber where things that would upset us are safely excluded; only the things we want to believe can get in. Back in the day if a politician were caught in a lie it would be damaging, so you avoided lies where you'd get caught. But today getting caught doesn't matter; the truth doesn't matter; what matters is which way reaction is breaking and you shape that with new information -- or misinformation, either works equally well so long as what you said a few days ago is old news. If your a politician old news can't penetrate the bubble you keep your followers in.

      In short,we live in the golden age of bullshit.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  6. Boo for article selection by Moridineas · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I was hoping that this kind of article wouldn't be showing up any more on the "new" Slashdot. I'm digging the new DICE-less Slashdot (and I even downloaded something from SourceForge for the first time in years!), and while this is obviously not a democracy, MHO is that if I want to read superficial and partisan social networking commentaries, I would seek them out (or not!) somewhere else--not on slashdot.

    1. Re:Boo for article selection by swell · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sorry, I like this kind of discussion at /.

      There are many places to go for talk about politics, religion, diet & health, etc. But each has its own polarization and is intended to satisfy those who agree with a particular viewpoint. Slashdot people tend to have certain opinions, but there are always some who differ and make the discussion interesting. Add to that a fairly high level of intelligence and rationality and we have a great place to explore any topic. Yes, this isn't http://www.well.com/ , but it is as close as many of us will ever come.

      --
      ...omphaloskepsis often...
  7. Trump is an interesting character by IWantMoreSpamPlease · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A pathological narcissist, a skilled liar, and possibly a sociopath.

    But an eloquent speaker who so far hasn't actually shown any concrete plans on how he plans to guide america.
    But very good at spewing mindless rhetoric that people seem to eat up, or at least enjoy watching the clown-car circus that the debates have devolved into.
    I fear a showdown between him and Clinton for the highest power in the land. Or in the words of Alien vs. Predator "No matter who wins, we lose"

    --
    So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
    1. Re:Trump is an interesting character by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But an eloquent speaker who so far hasn't actually shown any concrete plans on how he plans to guide america.

      In what universe is Donald Trump considered an "eloquent speaker"? Please provide some evidence, in the form of transcript or links to video, that shows Donald Trump speaking eloquently.

      FDR, Winston Churchill, even Malcolm X were eloquent speakers. Donald Trump is about as eloquent as an Andrew Dice Clay comedy bit.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:Trump is an interesting character by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Actually, I'd rate Andrew Dice Clay above Trump. The Daily Show recently had a bit where they showed portions of a Trump speech and for much of it he meanders aimlessly. However, when he gets to certain key talking points ("Ban those Muslims!" "Mexicans are rapists!") the crowd suddenly comes alive and cheers. That's more a knock on the people who support Trump than evidence of Trump being a great speaker.

      What he is good at, though, is media manipulation. He knows how to get everyone talking about him (yes, including what I'm doing now) and thus he gets free advertising everywhere. Nobody asks him for details and he doesn't give any because his campaign isn't about deep political discussions. It's about making the 2016 Presidential Election into one big reality TV show because in that arena Trump wins.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  8. Re:Obvious troll is obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think he's Trolling all of us. It's like he watched "Bulworth" and was inspired by it but decided to go Right Wing with it.

  9. Re:Obvious troll is obvious by Moridineas · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seems a reasonable observation.

    My personal theory (take this with a big IMHO and cum grano salis) is that one big difference between Republicans and Democrats is that by and by, most Democrats tend to like their party. Most Republicans barely stomach their own party. Thus, it makes sense that if Trump is trolling the Republican party, that a lot of Republicans go right along trolling with him.

  10. This is a subjective political article... by nrasch · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So this is clearly a subjective, politically motivated posting. For example, we don't hear the other side of the story, etc. Love or hate Trump, I come to this site for news for nerds, not clap trap about the actions of some candidate. Frankly they all suck, and so holding one higher--or lower as the case may be--is vapid at best. Drop the slanted political "news" and get back to what we come to Slash Dot for.

    1. Re:This is a subjective political article... by hey! · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Frankly they all suck, and so holding one higher--or lower as the case may be--is vapid at best. Drop the slanted political "news" and get back to what we come to Slash Dot for.

      Speaking of vapid... the idea that all the candidates are equivalent is the most empty and baseless statement I've heard in a long time. Or do you really think there's no difference between Trump and Kasich, or Sanders for that matter? Yes, there's always dreck, but this year's primaries offers more substantive and stark choices than any primary since I began voting in 1980.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  11. Re:Trump = Terrorist by dejitaru · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think it's more "The Republican Establishment terrorized themselves resulting in Donald Trump becoming a party nominee"

  12. Re:what a laugh by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Both parties have little to be proud of in their candidates

    ROFLMAO. I'll take the space cadet socialist and the shrill professional pol over the sentient briskets the Repubs have fielded any day of the week, thanks.

    --
    Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
  13. Re:what a laugh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Not sure if sarcastic, rhetorical exaggeration, or a literal example of what I was talking about.

    Also still not sure if Trump isn't just an elaborate troll on America.

  14. So he using Twitter like SJWs use Twitter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So what I'm getting is that Trump is using Twitter in the exact same way the SJWs use Twitter, but because it's Trump doing it, now it's bad.

    Mm-kay.

    The problem Twitter has is that it's become a platform for building outrage. People use retweets as a weapon to get their followers to harass people they disagree with. They'll post small, out of context quotes solely for the purpose of building rage. When it's SJWs or the likes of [only] Black Lives Matter doing it, that's fine, and Twitter is all about how cool activism is on their platform.

    When Trump does it, now it's the end of the world and we've got to stop those evil people by blocking them.

    Uh, no. Either ban both, or ban neither.

  15. I thought leftists supported public shaming? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I thought that leftists and social justice supporters (who generally oppose Trump) were fully in support of public shaming, especially when it's done online using social media platforms. It is one of their preferred tactics, after all. I mean, there was all that Kony 2012 nonsense, that incident where a couple of programmers were harassed for using the word "dongle", then the faux outrage over "manspreading", and numerous other incidents.

    Maybe this is just another example of them being dirty hypocrites, where they're willing to do something to somebody else, but are totally against it happening to them too?

    1. Re:I thought leftists supported public shaming? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      I'm slightly left of center and I support public shaming - based on fact and not innuendo or invented bullshit.

      Trump is a racist blame-and-excuse machine who tells a different version of "truth" every 10 minutes.

      If anyone is insulting his ridiculous hair, they're not trying very hard.

    2. Re:I thought leftists supported public shaming? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I thought the more common name for the behaviors you describe was trolling. Where is the line supposed to be?

      The line is when the troll is defeated with an indisputably factual reply. When that line is crossed, he cries "SJW! SJW!!"

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  16. Re:what a laugh by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Of course we got control, I turned 20 in early 1984. Now Tump and the rest of us old coots (aka former angst-ridden teen sociopaths) are going to give you little kid shits a long overdue attitude adjustment.

    and stay the fuck off my lawn

    If you are serious - Trump is the epitome of the Brave coward, He's the guy who will light the world on fire and will force everyone to bend to his will.

    And he cannot even stand up to little Megan Fox.

    And that dear sir, tells you everything you need to know about the reality show host.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  17. So th first "get trump off of twitter" post failed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And slashdot is trying again?
    http://tech.slashdot.org/story...
    (I notice the highly commented article is conspicuously absent from the "you might also like to read" list)

    "Oooh, he's such a meany.. he's so mean, like gamer gater mean... only Democrats can be so mean to Republicans on twitter so Trump should be bannnnnned"

    You're arguing for anti-bullying speech on one post while simultaneously posting articles calling for the heads of other "non-slashdot" approved persons on others using the exact same bullying tactics being decried here (or have you read your own comment sections? (Including this one)

    Stop this free speech for me not for thee crap.

  18. It's just twitter... by Alypius · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Meh. It's not like the IRS is auditing them or anything.

  19. Not a good sign by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, Insightful

    one big difference between Republicans and Democrats is that by and by, most Democrats tend to like their party. Most Republicans barely stomach their own party.

    In other words, Democrats by and large are delusional and Republicans by and large are realists.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  20. Why single out Trump? by Locke2005 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ad hominem attacks instead of reasoned debate are considered NORMAL on every internet forum now. So much so, that I'm sure someone on /. will just call me names instead of citing trustworthy sources to refute my argument. Apparently, on the 'net, arguments are won by the biggest dick, with the most spare time to repeatedly post insults... yeah, that does sound like Trump, doesn't it?

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  21. Re:Obvious troll is obvious by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You know, Trump has been the same guy since the 80s when I first became aware of him .. I don't believe he's a parody.

    He is that guy, and has been for the last 30 years quite publicly.

    I just don't see how that could be an act.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  22. Re:Trump = Good Hair Hitler by iggymanz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    oh? Trump is planning on gas chambers.

    So enforcing the law on immigration criminals or killing ISIL is "like hitler"?

    get some perspective. anti-male SJW femni-nazis on tumblr are more like Hitler than Trump.

  23. I disagree by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    While we're out here promoting our opinions on the subject of slashdot's Politics section, I'd like to throw my dissenting opinion into the ring.

    While you're certainly right that many stories under the Politics section indeed have little to nothing to do with news for nerds, oftentimes they still focus on stuff that matters. Many slashdotters come here not for the tech-focused stories [see also: rtfa], but to enjoy reasoned discussion with their nerdy brethren. See, for example, I cite a post I made the other day, about an admittedly controversial subject: the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That subject is no better of a fit for the themes slashdot tends to focus on than is this Trump story, but check it out. That discussion went on for days while staying shockingly civil, levelheaded, objective (particularly the thread with Sun, for which I'm still working on a conciliatory reply). I don't know of many other forums for online discussion where this is even plausible, and that is the reason I encourage the new ownership to not abandon one of the few remaining outlets for such dialog.

    tl;dr: Politics on slashdot is awesome because it's still possible to have discussions rooted in reason. At least until the libertarians come out. (I kid, I kid... ... but seriously :P)

    --
    Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
  24. The rise of the thug candidate. by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What I see with this election is the complete loss of civility. Nothing of substance is being said, it's simple mud slinging.
    Candidate X: "Mr. Trump, your idea is a bad one and here's why"
    Trump: "You're a dummy and your mother wished she'd aborted you with a coat hanger"
    Crowd: "*cheers*"
    Candidate X: "But what about your idea..."
    Trump: "Did I mention you're ugly too!"
    Candidate X: "I'm leaving... this is pointless"
    Trump: "Yup, there's goes a loser!"
    Crowd: "You're the best!!!"

    --
    Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
  25. Re:As long as he doesn't take Koch money by swb · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think in a lot of ways, US politics suffers from the tyranny of mediocrity.

    We have a system of checks and balances for a reason, and I think part of that reason is so we can take risks on political candidates who don't fall into the category of least worst or best-on-average.

    Trump has his buffoonish qualities and some crazy outbursts, like building the ridiculous wall, but I just don't get the sense that he's as bad as he's made out to be, and he does have some kind of compelling traits, like being one of the first candidates to speak out against H1-Bs and not needing to kowtow to party insiders or financial donors.

    As a system of positions, I like Sanders more but not exclusively and the other candidates turn me off in various ways. Rubio is paper thin in many of the same ways Obama was, Cruz is such a hard-core ideologue and has some positions I intimately detest, and both, for all their faux rebel status within the party prior to the primaries seem heavily invested in the existing system that benefits donors.

    Hillary may well be the best qualified as a political executive, but I also think she's too compliant to donors and too driven by personal ambition and hubris; she's just not trustable, and I don't like many of her positions, either.

    I say take a risk on crazy maybe and see what happens. I guess I just don't see our system capable of being ruined permanently by one guy.

  26. Re:what a laugh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    No, Cruz: Theocrat.

  27. Uppity folk by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "They better be careful," Trump wrote of the family, "they have a lot to hide!"

    It is wrong for him to do investigations of political opponents, and could be used to get the case thrown out.

    It was wrong for the IRS to be misused in this way under Obama.

    It was wrong for the IRS to be misused this way under Nixon.

    It was wrong, when S&P downgraded the US's bond rating, for Obama to announce a redoubled effort investigating them to see if there was anything they could tag them with as punishment.

    This is the purpose of warrant requirements, and the banning of general warrants, so those in power could not go fishing around for something illegal to tag uppity oppoonenta with.

    Boo Trump.

    Boo Obama.

    Boo Nixon.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  28. Re:what a laugh by Talderas · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The way unemployment data was collected and gathered differed during the Great Depression and current time. Concepts like U3 and U6 did not exist but it estimated that the U3 in the great depression peaked at 25.2% and the U6 peaked at 37.6%. The current U3 is 4.9% and the current U6 is 9.9%. The U3 rate only looks at employed individuals and those currently looking for work. The U6 rate includes those who are unemployed and willing to work but not looking for work and have looked for work in the past twelve months as well as those who are currently employed part-time due to part-time employment not always being able to provide enough income to support the household adequately.

    I don't know if there's a figure that includes unemployed that haven't looked for a job in the past twelve months.

    The general complaint regarding the U3 is that due to how easy it is for people to fall off from being on that figure while being unemployed. If you've not currently looking for work you're not counted. This can lead to a situation where it's hard to describe the economic burden faced by the workforce in having to support individuals who are not working.

    --
    "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
  29. Re:what a laugh by RoccamOccam · · Score: 2, Insightful

    As a long-time, very-conservative commenter here on Slashdot and a frequent critic of Obama (look up my posting history), I must strongly disagree. Trump would take the worst of Obama and elevate it to heights never dreamed of. He would be terrible for this country and the world.

  30. Trump is a textbook example of a "demagogue" by TapeCutter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Simply put, Trump is a "demagogue", as were Hitler and Stalin, that doesn't mean he is inherently evil, it means he is using the same psychological tools to gain power. He has already divided and conquered the GOP with an old fashioned xenophobic wedge, it will take them decades to recover their solidarity. Right now the rest of the planet are just crossing their fingers hoping the American people will stop humouring this wannabe tyrant BEFORE he gets to the whitehouse and starts pushing buttons just to see what happens.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  31. Re:what a laugh by dinfinity · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Nobody is perfect. Everyone has done something considered "wrong" in their past

    There's a huge difference between 'not perfect' and 'a fucking asshole'.
    Also, "he acts like regular people act" in the way that he has no problem talking nonsense and covering that up with bullshitting, bullying and pretty much all the juvenile ways to not have to admit having ever been wrong.

    Here's a thought: How about an honest rational decent courteous intelligent guy who always says what he believes and has done so for decades?

  32. Re:what a laugh by CaptainLard · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Consider what happens when you call someone a pussy or a dick, etc. Do you win the argument or change their opinion? Maybe in your head but in reality the argument is over and there is almost zero hope for a resolution. Essentially both sides are dug in and the only thing left to do is escalate the name calling (apologize? not in this decade). So what happens when you call an elected official a pussy? Probably the same thing as if you called them a very nice person thats saving us all. Nothing. Because you're talking among friends...or more likely posting on the internet.

    Now, what happens when the President of the United States calls someone a pussy? It ends all hope of any sort of resolution to the issue that is likely affecting millions of people!

    Just because we're all assholes online doesn't mean its ok for elected officials to just be a dick. Being called a dick is derogatory for a reason. But hey, if trump really floats your boat, great. Just make sure you never disagree with him on anything because on that issue you're fucked.