Slashdot Mirror
New Study Explains Why Trump's 'Sad' Tweets Are So Effective (theverge.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: During his campaign and presidency, Donald Trump has used Twitter to circumvent traditional media broadcasters and speak directly to the masses. He is particularly known for one specific tweet construction: he sets up a situation that he feels should inspire anger or outrage, then punctuates it with "Sad!" New research from New York University suggests a reason why this style is so effective: a tweet containing moral and emotional language spreads farther among people with similar political persuasion. The study offered up "duty" as an example of a purely moral word, "fear" as a purely emotional one, and "hate" as word that combined the two categories. The research found that the use of purely moral or purely emotional language had a limited impact on the spread of a tweet, but the "presence of moral-emotional words in messages increased their diffusion by a factor of 20% for each additional word." The impact of this language cut both ways. Tweets with moral-emotional words spread further among those with a similar political outlook, and they spread less with those who held opposing views, according to the research published in the journal PNAS. The study looked at 563,312 tweets on the topics of gun control, same-sex marriage, and climate change, and rated their impact by the number of retweets each one received.
He already knew about the Ten-word answer over a decade ago. And none of the words should have more than three syllables.
A short pithy rejoinder will accomplish more than a Platonic dialogue, no matter how well composed it might happen to be.
In fact, the only thing more powerful would be an acronym or emoji.
The vast majority of the population are semi-brainless machines whose hearts and minds are manipulated from simple word-commands from authority
Dark but true, deal with it
Because part of the study was measuring the rate of spread among people with the same and opposite political views to the tweeter using the moral-emotional language, so tweets about divisive topics make perfect candidates as there are clearly identifiable sides.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
An other article from today calls Trump a genius.
https://townhall.com/columnist...
"He is able to speak directly to the American people without going through the biased mainstream media filter. The media doesn’t get to ask him slanted questions or pick and choose parts of his press releases to publish. Instead, Trump gets immense control over every single sentence he issues, which are then read by millions of Americans. "
Regardless whether you love or hate the man, you do have to admit it is an effective way to deal with unfriendly media.
Calling him any sort of stupid is belied by the fact that he is a self-made billionaire, successful reality TV star
A self-reported billionaire, who started up with a "small loan" from his father, that has a track record of enriching himself by not upholding his part of contracts and screwing over his contractors. For the second part of your statement, do you also consider the Kardashians to be Mensa-grade?
Yes, emotionally manipulative language is effective, but it doesn't have to be. Train yourself to look for it, and then choose to reject it. When you see someone appealing to your emotions instead of your reason, recognize what they're doing and call them out for it.
They ought to be teaching this to school kids.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
I don't understand where fair an balanced comes from. It's a bunch of BS. Trump commits a new atrocity ever day of the week, but for some reason we have to trawl the bottom of the barrel to find a Democrat snafu to keep it fair. Oh hey guyz, remember that tiem dat Obummer wore tennis shoes and dress pants. OMG so unprofessional. Fair an balanced is how we end up with morons like Alex Jones getting air time. The guy should be sitting in a padded cell, not making six figures telling people there's a child sex ring in the basement of a pizza place that doesn't even have a basement.
Let's look at single payer insurance. California has 39 million residents. They figured single payer costs of $400 billion/yr. That is twice California's current total yearly revenue.
For reference - the UK NHS budget is £120m (USD$153m) for 65m people.
I can definitely see a US single payer programme costing way more per capita for many years (possibly decades) as the "old way of doing things" is unwound though.
Since the federal government already borrows $4 out of ever $10 it spends just where do you see the money to pay for a single payer system coming from?
I mean the obvious place is from the budget of the Department of Defense, right?! Most of the Americans I know (I lived in Ohio for two years) would happily stop exporting shrapnel and high explosives to the middle east if it meant they could get more efficient healthcare services.
I do have some sympathy for you, but your situation is unusual. You're pretty much at the poverty line with your yearly income due to disability and that does mean that you don't have a lot of choices for health insurance. And I hate to break it to you, but your premiums were still going up without Obamacare. Premiums went up constantly before it. They've gone up with it. They'll go up when AHCA gets passed. There's nothing in AHCA that's going to be of benefit to you.
I'm not accepting your numbers for US single payer insurance costs, which were no doubt pulled out of some biased right wing article you found. I also hate to break this to you, but single payer insurance is inevitable. It's the only thing that can ever bring costs down other than providing catastrophic only coverage that pays for nothing else, which would be a big problem for you. And even providing catastrophic only coverage is likely to see premiums go through the roof because the insurance companies will get less money that way in premiums, so they'll make it up by raising costs.
Your argument about the government paying pension plans is bogus because the US government back in the 1980s moved away from a pension plan system for federal employees and for over 30 years now all federal employees have had to have 401K plans. They have no choice.
Personal anecdote, but my coverage through MassHealth is the best coverage I've ever had. Coverage and premiums vary tremendously from state to state. Compared to Mass, the ACA health care available in New Hampshire is a disaster, I hear. That's not the case in my neck of the woods.
Let's look at single payer insurance. California has 39 million residents. They figured single payer costs of $400 billion/yr. That is twice California's current total yearly revenue.
Well, duh. Our health care system is purely for-profit, which means taking advantage of sick people... people in duress who are desperate to get better and know that if they don't, they can't work and are basically fucked. No insurance plan will help if a US medical procedure costs 15-20 times as much as the same procedure in Germany. Most nations in the world have aggressive price control for their health care specifically to prevent profiteering. But here in the US, that's called punishing success, so of course we can't do that, and pharmaceutical companies rank among the most profitable companies in the world because it's a comfortable racket if you can get your foot in the door.
Sad!