It constantly amazes me that trump supporters see him as this tough no nonsense outsider who will force other countries to bend to our will, and yet can't handle a debate moderator or the incredibly soft media scrutiny he's gotten.
what did Jimmy Fallon do re: trump that made Comedy Twitter turn on him so hard, I think I missed something
Nothing.
By which I mean, he had Trump on the show, treated him like a playful lil' scamp instead of a hatemonger, ruffled his hear like he was Dennis the Menace, and called it a day. He had a dangerous, asinine bigot on his show, and just made him look a like a lovable kook. Fallon did nothing.
Now why Comedy Twitter expected anything different from Fallon, Softest Dude in the Biz, or why they're giving SNL a pass - that I couldn't tell you
Poorochondriac on
+33
Options
VivixenneRemember your training, and we'll get through this just fine.Registered Userregular
yes, this, and there's a fair bit of science to back it up
specifically, it's not that he's yelling, it's that he uses certain inflections in his voice that reflect confidence
he could say literally anything, but with a certain tone and presentation, there will always be a portion of the audience who immediately agrees with him or at least considers his point, precisely because he says it assertively and in a way that has been modelled throughout human history as "confident" or unassailable
a fantastic example is when he says "you know what I mean" or "you know what I'm talking about"
these are nothing statements that actually say NOTHING, but because of the wording and, more importantly, his delivery of those words, the implication is that if you are a REAL Trump supporter, you'll get it
as an individual Trump supporter, you may not know what he's talking about, but you a) don't want to look like an idiot by asking what he means and b) want to be "in" with Trump, so you don't call him on it and instead nod along like "yeah, totally, I'M WITH YOU BUDDY", and figure they'll sort it out later, privately, to get in on the inside story or joke (which they definitely don't, because there's nothing to actually figure out, but hey, I'm being charitable here)
the thing is that everyone else in the target audience is doing exactly the same thing, which on the outside looks like a room of people "totally getting it", which makes it even HARDER for someone to say "but wait what DO you mean", because then they fear getting laughed out of the room (or worse)
so in ACTING like they all "totally get it", it looks like Trump has a base that supports him because he lets them in on the joke, and if you don't get it you're not really one of them, which encourages EVEN MORE people to act like they "get it", which, externally, makes Trump look even better, because look at how well he relates to these people, they "get it"!
even though he's said absolutely nothing of substance and there's no inside joke because he's full of shit, his own supporters will never challenge it, which leaves it to opponents or outsiders to do, and then THEY just get shouted down as biased, crooked, or liars
what did Jimmy Fallon do re: trump that made Comedy Twitter turn on him so hard, I think I missed something
Jimmy Fallon did precisely what I would've expected Jimmy Fallon to do - crack jokes with the joker (Trump) while actually interviewing the politician (Hillary)
as many folks have pointed out, it's very easy to treat Trump like a joke when you're not the target of his hateful rhetoric
I think SNL has gotten more of a pass because I don't think most of the people involved with the show wanted him there.
0
Options
VivixenneRemember your training, and we'll get through this just fine.Registered Userregular
edited September 2016
I'm not a sociology academic at all, but there seems to be a ton of theory that explains why Trump is so popular, though I have no idea what the terms are to describe it
the power dynamics around gatekeeping your social network, like deciding who stays and who goes, who gets to be "in" and who gets to be "out"
it doesn't matter if your selection process is based on nonsense; people WANT to be "in" because it's power by proxy and (perceived) protection from the treatment you could receive by being "out"; then it's about who can be the MOST "in", because then you can begin influencing who else gets to be included and who else should be excluded
like being in the Plastics even if you're miserable is still better than being left out in the social wilderness
and people who already feel excluded by the mainstream (see: Mark Zuckerberg, in the early days of Facebook) find this sort of thing especially appealing, because not only are you IN, but now you totally get to decide who gets to be in, which is power that you never had before, and it's addictive stuff
and I think @Tube posted a while back about how Trump himself was excluded in some form (or at least perceived himself to be excluded) from the "clubs" he once wanted to join, and now he gets to run the show?
it kinda fits, but I'm sure none of this is particularly novel to us in here, I just find it fascinating stuff
Is there anything in the US that would make having a psychiatric evaluation by a third party for presidential candidates unconstitutional or illegal or not allowed because of rules?
Is there anything in the US that would make having a psychiatric evaluation by a third party for presidential candidates unconstitutional or illegal or not allowed because of rules?
The Goldwater Rule applies here. It's a professional ethics thing, not a law though. It says psychiatrists can't give a professional opinion about someone they have not personally examined.
An actual personal examination would be private due to HIPAA rules, unless the candidate decided to release it.
Like as a game series yeah, but it didn't become a misogynistic alt right mascot.
All my iconography gets appropriated by racists.
I'm literally wearing a sonic shirt right now. I have precious few shirts that fit right currently and I don't want to lose one because the alt right internet meme factories decide that sonic the hedgehog needs to be a misogynistic racist mascot.
The games? Naw, dogg. I'm talking about all the internet arts about Sonic. People been using him for crazy shit for years. And not even just for sexual purposes which gets done with everything. Google "Sonic Christian" for example of how he's already a conservobot icon! (probably don't do it at work, though)
the pepe shit makes me feel old in a good way because I am usually aware of how the memes of the kids these days evolve but this particular development completely passed me by and I'm so happy that my brain has room for more useful information
Is there anything in the US that would make having a psychiatric evaluation by a third party for presidential candidates unconstitutional or illegal or not allowed because of rules?
In my less self-aware moments, I dream of this becoming an actual practice. The reality, though, is that this opens up a veritable pit of sandworms. I don't know if other countries adopt such a practice, and I'd be really curious to hear about those that do!
But like, what are you looking for? What is your base criteria for being "good enough" to be a presidential candidate?
Mental health is stigmatised enough, and under intense psychiatric scrutiny, I don't think most people would pass such a test anyway. All of us have character flaws, implicit bias, and blind spots. We ALL doubt ourselves (even Trump), though we compensate for this doubt in widely different ways (doubling down, denial, withdrawal, etc), often depending on an unquantifiable number of factors. Consider also that even basic human behaviour is often heavily over-pathologised.
Take introvertedness as an example; by many measures, introverts exhibit characteristics that are very different to mainstream definitions of good mental health, even if having an introverted personality is totally "normal".
The thing about a psychiatric evaluation is that you go into it looking for the problem. We can claim we go into neutrally, but we don't, because they're in front of us for a reason.
The closest thing that could work is psychometric testing, but even these are flawed, because even if the tests are made to be very technical by design, the results still have to be interpreted by a human person. Two psychologists looking at the same set of raw data can infer very different things, all of which they could say is supported by the data in the test. And where the stakes are who could be the next president, it's going to be a lot more than two psychologists evaluating that data.
Specifically, Trump doesn't strike me as mentally unwell. He is actually behaving as expected for a man with the history we know about. What comes across as delusional is actually a blindspot born from extreme privilege and the continuing influence of yes-men, which he himself needs because he cannot tolerate criticism or attacks on his character (also linked to his upbringing, I'd imagine). He's highly sensitive and he has the emotional development of a carrot, but that's ALSO unsurprising. His personality trends towards the narcissistic/histrionic, but he'd be far from the only politician on either side of the conversation to have that feature.
Like, I dunno. If other countries make that sort of evaluation work, then great! But I'd disagree with the practice in principle, if only because that sort of thing is advantageous only to the people who don't really need more advantages, while leading to increased marginalisation of anyone who didn't fit a "presidential" psychiatric profile.
Is there anything in the US that would make having a psychiatric evaluation by a third party for presidential candidates unconstitutional or illegal or not allowed because of rules?
Kinda, but also to get a proper evaluation you'd have to do it over a long period of time, under normal circumstances for the person, and there's no way in hell the candidates would be truthful. Psychiatric evaluation isn't conducted in a zone of truth, well, unless you get one of the ones prescribing E.
I think it'd be the opposite. Everyone would pass a hypothetical mental health check. Even Trump. Unless the bar was set ridiculously high. He might have some fairly obvious character flaws, but nothing that'd make him unfit to be President. Just flaws that'd make him unsuitable to be president.
I'm a little skeptical about this article. The voice is a little too (sorry everyone) British and anti-continental for me to take his word for it that Deutsche Bank is about to collapse.
I think it'd be the opposite. Everyone would pass a hypothetical mental health check. Even Trump. Unless the bar was set ridiculously high. He might have some fairly obvious character flaws, but nothing that'd make him unfit to be President. Just flaws that'd make him unsuitable to be president.
The issue with this is the premise - what constitutes "passing" a mental health check? What measures are you using? Technically ANYONE or NO ONE could pass such a check, and there isn't any universal checklist that says "yes you are a normally functioning human" when even the definition of "normal" and "functioning" are completely subjective qualities!
I don't think I've ever heard "yeah this person passes the mental health check" in my line of work, simply because such a claim does not exist and cannot be supported with any sort of objective measure.
I don't think narcissism is in and of itself a negative personality trait
it isn't
there's a difference between narcissism as a human trait as narcissistic personality disorder as a cluster of traits
people generally conflate the two
narcissism itself isn't a tick-box trait on a checklist, it's something everyone has to some extent, and it's more pronounced/visible in some than in others
in and of itself it doesn't mean you are a "bad" or "non-functioning" person, because you could easily argue that some degree of narcissism is necessary in achieving personal goals, big or small
narcissism is defined as an "extreme" preoccupation with oneself, but in practice the difference between "extreme" and "normal and healthy" is not very well defined
I don't think narcissism is in and of itself a negative personality trait
I suspect it's probably necessary to get anything done at all in politics, especially with the kind of invasive and perpetual media coverage we have now. I don't think I'm a humble person by any means, but I know that running for public office would probably crush my ego - you have to be pretty robust and self-confident to push through it.
Narcissistic Personality Disorder is a much scarier sounding accusation to level at someone because it makes them sound like one of those dangerous sick in the head people, instead of just being unpleasant
Narcissistic Personality Disorder is a much scarier sounding accusation to level at someone because it makes them sound like one of those dangerous sick in the head people, instead of just being unpleasant
well you have to meet a large swathe of criteria to qualify for NPD. From casual armchair analysis I certainly wouldn't rule it out for Trump, but it's probably not as pathologically pervasive in politicians as one might fear.
Posts
Bless his heart.
what did Jimmy Fallon do re: trump that made Comedy Twitter turn on him so hard, I think I missed something
Nothing.
By which I mean, he had Trump on the show, treated him like a playful lil' scamp instead of a hatemonger, ruffled his hear like he was Dennis the Menace, and called it a day. He had a dangerous, asinine bigot on his show, and just made him look a like a lovable kook. Fallon did nothing.
Now why Comedy Twitter expected anything different from Fallon, Softest Dude in the Biz, or why they're giving SNL a pass - that I couldn't tell you
yes, this, and there's a fair bit of science to back it up
specifically, it's not that he's yelling, it's that he uses certain inflections in his voice that reflect confidence
he could say literally anything, but with a certain tone and presentation, there will always be a portion of the audience who immediately agrees with him or at least considers his point, precisely because he says it assertively and in a way that has been modelled throughout human history as "confident" or unassailable
a fantastic example is when he says "you know what I mean" or "you know what I'm talking about"
these are nothing statements that actually say NOTHING, but because of the wording and, more importantly, his delivery of those words, the implication is that if you are a REAL Trump supporter, you'll get it
as an individual Trump supporter, you may not know what he's talking about, but you a) don't want to look like an idiot by asking what he means and b) want to be "in" with Trump, so you don't call him on it and instead nod along like "yeah, totally, I'M WITH YOU BUDDY", and figure they'll sort it out later, privately, to get in on the inside story or joke (which they definitely don't, because there's nothing to actually figure out, but hey, I'm being charitable here)
the thing is that everyone else in the target audience is doing exactly the same thing, which on the outside looks like a room of people "totally getting it", which makes it even HARDER for someone to say "but wait what DO you mean", because then they fear getting laughed out of the room (or worse)
so in ACTING like they all "totally get it", it looks like Trump has a base that supports him because he lets them in on the joke, and if you don't get it you're not really one of them, which encourages EVEN MORE people to act like they "get it", which, externally, makes Trump look even better, because look at how well he relates to these people, they "get it"!
even though he's said absolutely nothing of substance and there's no inside joke because he's full of shit, his own supporters will never challenge it, which leaves it to opponents or outsiders to do, and then THEY just get shouted down as biased, crooked, or liars
Jimmy Fallon did precisely what I would've expected Jimmy Fallon to do - crack jokes with the joker (Trump) while actually interviewing the politician (Hillary)
as many folks have pointed out, it's very easy to treat Trump like a joke when you're not the target of his hateful rhetoric
the power dynamics around gatekeeping your social network, like deciding who stays and who goes, who gets to be "in" and who gets to be "out"
it doesn't matter if your selection process is based on nonsense; people WANT to be "in" because it's power by proxy and (perceived) protection from the treatment you could receive by being "out"; then it's about who can be the MOST "in", because then you can begin influencing who else gets to be included and who else should be excluded
like being in the Plastics even if you're miserable is still better than being left out in the social wilderness
and people who already feel excluded by the mainstream (see: Mark Zuckerberg, in the early days of Facebook) find this sort of thing especially appealing, because not only are you IN, but now you totally get to decide who gets to be in, which is power that you never had before, and it's addictive stuff
and I think @Tube posted a while back about how Trump himself was excluded in some form (or at least perceived himself to be excluded) from the "clubs" he once wanted to join, and now he gets to run the show?
it kinda fits, but I'm sure none of this is particularly novel to us in here, I just find it fascinating stuff
The Goldwater Rule applies here. It's a professional ethics thing, not a law though. It says psychiatrists can't give a professional opinion about someone they have not personally examined.
An actual personal examination would be private due to HIPAA rules, unless the candidate decided to release it.
God damnit
are you a meme antiquarian?
...goddammit
harambe is the most forced meme since milhouse
Given that Trump has a bunch of loans from them, it would be nice to know how tied to them he is such as by way of tax returns.
In my less self-aware moments, I dream of this becoming an actual practice. The reality, though, is that this opens up a veritable pit of sandworms. I don't know if other countries adopt such a practice, and I'd be really curious to hear about those that do!
But like, what are you looking for? What is your base criteria for being "good enough" to be a presidential candidate?
Mental health is stigmatised enough, and under intense psychiatric scrutiny, I don't think most people would pass such a test anyway. All of us have character flaws, implicit bias, and blind spots. We ALL doubt ourselves (even Trump), though we compensate for this doubt in widely different ways (doubling down, denial, withdrawal, etc), often depending on an unquantifiable number of factors. Consider also that even basic human behaviour is often heavily over-pathologised.
Take introvertedness as an example; by many measures, introverts exhibit characteristics that are very different to mainstream definitions of good mental health, even if having an introverted personality is totally "normal".
The thing about a psychiatric evaluation is that you go into it looking for the problem. We can claim we go into neutrally, but we don't, because they're in front of us for a reason.
The closest thing that could work is psychometric testing, but even these are flawed, because even if the tests are made to be very technical by design, the results still have to be interpreted by a human person. Two psychologists looking at the same set of raw data can infer very different things, all of which they could say is supported by the data in the test. And where the stakes are who could be the next president, it's going to be a lot more than two psychologists evaluating that data.
Specifically, Trump doesn't strike me as mentally unwell. He is actually behaving as expected for a man with the history we know about. What comes across as delusional is actually a blindspot born from extreme privilege and the continuing influence of yes-men, which he himself needs because he cannot tolerate criticism or attacks on his character (also linked to his upbringing, I'd imagine). He's highly sensitive and he has the emotional development of a carrot, but that's ALSO unsurprising. His personality trends towards the narcissistic/histrionic, but he'd be far from the only politician on either side of the conversation to have that feature.
Like, I dunno. If other countries make that sort of evaluation work, then great! But I'd disagree with the practice in principle, if only because that sort of thing is advantageous only to the people who don't really need more advantages, while leading to increased marginalisation of anyone who didn't fit a "presidential" psychiatric profile.
I'm a little skeptical about this article. The voice is a little too (sorry everyone) British and anti-continental for me to take his word for it that Deutsche Bank is about to collapse.
The issue with this is the premise - what constitutes "passing" a mental health check? What measures are you using? Technically ANYONE or NO ONE could pass such a check, and there isn't any universal checklist that says "yes you are a normally functioning human" when even the definition of "normal" and "functioning" are completely subjective qualities!
I don't think I've ever heard "yeah this person passes the mental health check" in my line of work, simply because such a claim does not exist and cannot be supported with any sort of objective measure.
i remember reading some scary things about Deutschebank back in January or February.
i really don't want to see the entire EU unravel
steam | Dokkan: 868846562
it isn't
there's a difference between narcissism as a human trait as narcissistic personality disorder as a cluster of traits
people generally conflate the two
narcissism itself isn't a tick-box trait on a checklist, it's something everyone has to some extent, and it's more pronounced/visible in some than in others
in and of itself it doesn't mean you are a "bad" or "non-functioning" person, because you could easily argue that some degree of narcissism is necessary in achieving personal goals, big or small
narcissism is defined as an "extreme" preoccupation with oneself, but in practice the difference between "extreme" and "normal and healthy" is not very well defined
Look, some of us here ARE really really really ridiculously good looking. It would be a crime not to stare at our reflections for a bit.
Alex Jones has to know how profitable a Clinton presidency would be for his brand.
I suspect it's probably necessary to get anything done at all in politics, especially with the kind of invasive and perpetual media coverage we have now. I don't think I'm a humble person by any means, but I know that running for public office would probably crush my ego - you have to be pretty robust and self-confident to push through it.
well you have to meet a large swathe of criteria to qualify for NPD. From casual armchair analysis I certainly wouldn't rule it out for Trump, but it's probably not as pathologically pervasive in politicians as one might fear.
it has only really succeeded in establishing a working economy
so if you're a fan of late-capitalism the EU is a pretty good thing
otherwise there's really no advantage to it sticking around
Twitch (I stream most days of the week)
Twitter (mean leftist discourse)