In his latest blog post, “The Crook versus the Monster” Adams claims Clinton out-persuaded the master (Trump) in convincing people what a monster he is, and how that is worse than being a crook. He then goes on to exonerate Trump as not being a monster, but easily finds Clinton guilty of being a crook. It appears all of his arguments only apply in one direction, but not the other.
The cognitive dissonance is strong in Adams. Yet, showing a complete lack of introspection and self realization, he continually accuses his detractors of being the ones suffering from cognitive dissonance or being paid Hillary shills. Rather than studying hypnosis and persuasion, perhaps Adams would have been better served studying psychology and learning about projection.
The scariest part about his latest post is that he justifies killing a leader who exhibits the qualities attached to Trump. In his own words… “…I’m confident you would join me in the resistance movement and help kill any leader that exhibited genuine animosity toward people because of their genitalia, sexual preference, or skin pigmentation.” Someone should notify Adams that these qualities, while abhorrent, are not worthy of capital punishment via mob justice.
And finally, there is one statement Adams makes that pretty much sums it all up for me: “Democrats generally use guns to commit crimes. Republican use guns for sport and for self-defense.”
Adams fails to see the bigotry and racism and misogyny in Trump, because he suffers from it himself.
That’s because he’s already reached a conclusion, and is attempting to rationalize his way into it. It’s a behavior that’s common in people that I like to refer to as ‘damp androids.’
Uggh. That one just makes clear his own cognitive dissonance. He says he doesn’t support Trump but all the Hillary problems that her supporters don’t care about are crimes or cheating, all the Trump problems his supporters don’t care about are just on the sleazy side. Sure, he just accidentally forgot all the Trump problems that could, in fact, be crimes.
After the “judge is biased because he’s Mexican” stuff, Adams posted that it’s not racist to call someone “Mexican”. I tweeted to Adams that it’s not called racist because he was called “Mexican”, but rather because Trump said that the judge couldn’t due his job because of his ethnicity. I had a bit of a back-and-forth (all cordial and nothing insulting) with Adams and some of his fans (and Trump fans), and after an hour or so Adams blocked me.
Now, as far as I recall, his first posts on the subject were supposedly in wild admiration over Trump’s ability to be a “master persuader” and how he was a shoo-in for president because of that ability. You’ll notice that, apparently, he was doing the opposite of that for the last year, trying to “unhypnotize” the country.
A few posts later he writes
which, in my eyes, contradicts his assertion that “Trump is the bigger agent for change”.
All in all what disturbs me the most is his tendency to hide his Republican/Trumpian bent behind a veneer of “objective” observer. It’s slimy.
Scott Adams tweets: “If there are no sponsored terror attacks before Election Day, it means ISIS prefers Clinton. They have the means. Think about it. #Trump”
Maybe I’m missing something, but it looks like he’s saying that left-leaning types are now bullying him for what he’s said – but, see, they “are philosophically opposed to bullies. Once they realize they have been persuaded by Clinton’s campaign to become the thing they hate, the spell will be broken. And they won’t show up to vote.”
Nope, it’s that Hillary is mean and a bully, and Trump unifies all Americans and is a bully to none of them. That will change everything.
He is absolutely serious, by the way. Adams claims Trump has not been mean at all to women, Mexicans, Muslims, or anyone else. This will change everything and Trump will win in a landslide. Also, ISIS isn’t carrying out attacks because they’re trying to get Clinton elected, and anyone who agrees with him is paid by the Clinton campaign to bully him. Again, I’m completely serious.
You know, it’s crazy how Adams puts out these theories that facts don’t matter, all that matters is how the voters feel. And then he tries to argue that when voters feel a certain way about Trump–that they loathe him–that they’re irrational and shouldn’t feel that way.
Trump persuaded a lot of people to vote for him, based on how Trump made them feel. Yes, that certainly happened. And then Trump persuaded a lot of other people to not vote for him, based on how Trump made them feel. And that’s certainly happening too.
Arguing with people about their gut feelings about Trump, isn’t that a waste of time for a master persuader? Shouldn’t Trump be out there creating an irrational subjective feeling that persuades people to vote for him despite the fact that he’s a racist bullying narcissist? Waaaaaa, Hillary tricked people into feeling that Trump is an asshole! That’s unfair!
