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.
/. has devolved into mostly partisan bickering. Sad!
"No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Sad!" - CmdrTrumpo
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
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."
In fact, the only thing more powerful would be an acronym or emoji.
So you're saying the most viral possible right-wing tweet would be:
SJWs :-( Sad!
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
I use the same words but nobody reads them. Sad.
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.
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. That's especially true when they're saying things you agree with, because that's when you're most vulnerable to manipulation. We each have the responsibility to reject people who try to manipulate our emotions and tell them that's not acceptable. We also have the responsibility not to stoop to doing it ourselves. If your arguments are sound, they can stand on their own without emotionally manipulative language. If you find you can't make your arguments sound convincing without it, that's a pretty good clue there's something wrong with them.
"I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
Under Obamacare my premiums have gone through the roof. Two years ago, if I would have been able to afford it, my premiums would have been $257/month with a $3500 deductible. That is basically $6600/yr. On top of that my medications would have cost me another $500/month over and above the copays and what the insurance would cover. That is $12,600/yr on less than $25,000/yr income. I'm disabled if you want to know the reason for the low income.
This year, if I had actually puchased a plan my monthly payment would have been $450/month, with a $6000/yr deductible. Add to that the costs of my medications over and above the copays and insurance coverage of $600/month and it comes to a right tidy percentage of our yearly income. Our yearly costs would have been a minimum of $18,600. That doesn't cost any possible hospitalization costs or what I have to pay for specialists visits which have a copay of $100/visit. I'm supposed to buy that on a total income of less than $30000/yr. In fact, the government will fine me for not having spent 62% of our total income on health insurance premiums, deductibles, and copays.
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.
Let's just say Caliifornia has 40 milllion residents to make a nice round number. And let's figure that the US has 320 million citizens. One is over estimated slightly and the other under estimated slightly. That makes the California population 1/8 of the US population. That means that a conservative estimate of single payer insurance costs for the entire us to $3.2 trillion dollars. That's approximately 75% of current total federal government spending.
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? And just how sustainable are the federal government's current spending habits, let alone with a 75% increase in federal spending?
Also, do you understand that the current published federal debt of around $20 trillion is peanuts compared to what it owes in unfunded liabilities such as pension plans, future payments for current entitlement programs, etc...? In 2010 our unfunded liabilities were around $120-$140 trillion. Meaning if the feds had cut spending enough to begin paying that down at $1 trillion/yr it would have taken us well over a century to pay our debts? Our current unfunded liabilities have been estimated in the $200 trillion range. In other words paying them off with a federal budget that is $1 trillion in the black ever year would take us two centuries to pay the debt.
The US is flat out bankrupt.
"while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
Nothing to debate - he's a serial liar:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/23/opinion/trumps-lies.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosam&stream=top-stories&_r=0&utm_source=TractionNext&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Worm-Subscribe-270617
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.
Why aren't you taking advantage of the subsidy? You're earning under 200% of the federal poverty level for a household of two, so you should qualify for a subsidy equal to whatever it takes to reduce the second cheapest silver plan to 6.3% of your income. (Yes, there is still the matter of deductibles and copayments, but at least the premiums would be much more reasonable at around $150/month.)
Better still, in some states you should qualify for Medicaid on the basis of being disabled. I take it your state is not one of those?
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.