Trumpanzee Trigger Point!

[Elixir]

Trump and Republicans Appeal to Men with Fragile Masculinity, Researchers Find

...as if that wasn't obvious from the "tiny hands" moment in 2016...
I'm sure they all identify bigly with Trump's reassurance that he'd have run into the gunfire at Parkland.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

So they are a basket of deplorables?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

This explains a lot.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Seems to make sense intuitively... but note how the research was done. Not great. 300 men on the internet. Two levels of (questionable) correlation. Really? This strikes me as a prime example of researchers setting out to find something so they can use it politically, like a lot of research in this area. Your pushing this is likely to backfire as well. It makes Trump supporters look like they may be sensible, through more baseless bashing of them. Better to attack them with something with foundation... like that Trump just assissinated a foreign general and nearly caused a war for no reason, and they still back him. Garbage like this "study" will only push them to sink deeper into the Trump "fake news" bubble.

NYU Psychology professor Eric Knowles and doctoral student Sarah DiMuccio queried 300 men on Amazon's crowdsourcing platform Mechanical Turk to discover whether they had or would search for terms such as "erectile dysfunction," "how to get girls," "penis enlargement," "testosterone," and "Viagra," among others.

They discovered a high level of concern about masculinity "was strongly associated with interest in these search topics."

They then correlated the geopgrahic dispersion of these search topics in 2016 with how such areas voted in that year's election, finding "that support for Trump in the 2016 election was higher in areas that had more searches for topics such as 'erectile dysfunction.' Moreover, this relationship persisted after accounting for demographic attributes in media markets, such as education levels and racial composition, as well as searches for topics unrelated to fragile masculinity, such as 'breast augmentation' and 'menopause.'"

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

So they are a basket of deplorables?

Or some people just have too much time on their hands and don't make good decisions when it comes time to spending it productively.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Seems to make sense intuitively... but note how the research was done. Not great. 300 men on the internet. Two levels of (questionable) correlation. Really? This strikes me as a prime example of researchers setting out to find something so they can use it politically, like a lot of research in this area. Your pushing this is likely to backfire as well. It makes Trump supporters look like they may be sensible, through more baseless bashing of them. Better to attack them with something with foundation... like that Trump just assissinated a foreign general and nearly caused a war for no reason, and they still back him. Garbage like this "study" will only push them to sink deeper into the Trump "fake news" bubble.

NYU Psychology professor Eric Knowles and doctoral student Sarah DiMuccio queried 300 men on Amazon's crowdsourcing platform Mechanical Turk to discover whether they had or would search for terms such as "erectile dysfunction," "how to get girls," "penis enlargement," "testosterone," and "Viagra," among others.

They discovered a high level of concern about masculinity "was strongly associated with interest in these search topics."

They then correlated the geopgrahic dispersion of these search topics in 2016 with how such areas voted in that year's election, finding "that support for Trump in the 2016 election was higher in areas that had more searches for topics such as 'erectile dysfunction.' Moreover, this relationship persisted after accounting for demographic attributes in media markets, such as education levels and racial composition, as well as searches for topics unrelated to fragile masculinity, such as 'breast augmentation' and 'menopause.'"

So conservatives on the Internet are dishonest?

 

[Elixir]

Seems to make sense intuitively... but note how the research was done. Not great. 300 men on the internet. Two levels of (questionable) correlation. Really? This strikes me as a prime example of researchers setting out to find something so they can use it politically, like a lot of research in this area. Your pushing this is likely to backfire as well. It makes Trump supporters look like they may be sensible, through more baseless bashing of them. Better to attack them with something with foundation... like that Trump just assissinated a foreign general and nearly caused a war for no reason, and they still back him. Garbage like this "study" will only push them to sink deeper into the Trump "fake news" bubble.

NYU Psychology professor Eric Knowles and doctoral student Sarah DiMuccio queried 300 men on Amazon's crowdsourcing platform Mechanical Turk to discover whether they had or would search for terms such as "erectile dysfunction," "how to get girls," "penis enlargement," "testosterone," and "Viagra," among others.

They discovered a high level of concern about masculinity "was strongly associated with interest in these search topics."

They then correlated the geopgrahic dispersion of these search topics in 2016 with how such areas voted in that year's election, finding "that support for Trump in the 2016 election was higher in areas that had more searches for topics such as 'erectile dysfunction.' Moreover, this relationship persisted after accounting for demographic attributes in media markets, such as education levels and racial composition, as well as searches for topics unrelated to fragile masculinity, such as 'breast augmentation' and 'menopause.'"

Methinks thou dost protest a smidge too much ( ), but of course you're right. So what? Like a trigger point has to involve rigorous science... sheesh! They don't even know what that is!

 

[Gun Nut]

So they are a basket of deplorables?

I, for one, think Hillary should have doubled down and gone for "all or nothing" with that... just give them an "out".. like all the lying... "of course you would think that.. but NOW THAT YOU KNOW THE TRUTH... (that's your out) you'd have to be a deplorable..."

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Objectively, she said "half" were a basket of deplorables. And she was right. People who quotemine her like she said every Republican or every Trump supporter are probably in that group. Probably. At the least, the burden is on them to explain themselves.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

So, "if it offends you it is because you see yourself in what was said", like a racist using ethnic slurs against minorities and the minorities getting offended.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

So, "if it offends you it is because you see yourself in what was said", like a racist using ethnic slurs against minorities and the minorities getting offended.

WTF. How does this warped mischaracterization of what I wrote explain why you chose to deliberately quotemine Clinton?

 

[Gun Nut]

So, "if it offends you it is because you see yourself in what was said", like a racist using ethnic slurs against minorities and the minorities getting offended.

No idea what post you are replying to but based on the discussion, your post makes no sense... to fix it for you, it would be more like if a racist used an ethnic slur against latinos and then a large group of black people claimed the racist made remarks about them.

 

[Elixir]

So, "if it offends you it is because you see yourself in what was said", like a racist using ethnic slurs against minorities and the minorities getting offended.

WTF. How does this warped mischaracterization of what I wrote explain why you chose to deliberately quotemine Clinton?

Don't get too upset - he's just answering the call of the OP.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

So, "if it offends you it is because you see yourself in what was said", like a racist using ethnic slurs against minorities and the minorities getting offended.

WTF. How does this warped mischaracterization of what I wrote explain why you chose to deliberately quotemine Clinton?

You said that if it offends someone, then obviously it means they see themselves in what was said. If you're not deplorable then you won't get offended by it. Just like ethnic slurs.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

So, "if it offends you it is because you see yourself in what was said", like a racist using ethnic slurs against minorities and the minorities getting offended.

WTF. How does this warped mischaracterization of what I wrote explain why you chose to deliberately quotemine Clinton?

You said that if it offends someone, then obviously it means they see themselves in what was said. If you're not deplorable then you won't get offended by it. Just like ethnic slurs.

No I did not say that. I was talking about quotemining Clinton.

Here is what she actually said:

You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? They're racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic – Islamophobic – you name it. And unfortunately, there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people – now have 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks – they are irredeemable, but thankfully, they are not America.

But the "other" basket – the other basket – and I know because I look at this crowd I see friends from all over America here: I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas and — as well as, you know, New York and California — but that "other" basket of people are people who feel the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures; and they're just desperate for change. It doesn't really even matter where it comes from. They don't buy everything he says, but — he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won't wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they're in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well.

 

[J842P]

You said that if it offends someone, then obviously it means they see themselves in what was said. If you're not deplorable then you won't get offended by it. Just like ethnic slurs.

No I did not say that. I was talking about quotemining Clinton.

Here is what she actually said:

You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? They're racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic – Islamophobic – you name it. And unfortunately, there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people – now have 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks – they are irredeemable, but thankfully, they are not America.

But the "other" basket – the other basket – and I know because I look at this crowd I see friends from all over America here: I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas and — as well as, you know, New York and California — but that "other" basket of people are people who feel the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures; and they're just desperate for change. It doesn't really even matter where it comes from. They don't buy everything he says, but — he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won't wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they're in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well.

Right. Half of them are deplorable, and some, I assume, are good people...

Genius politics.

 

[Worldtraveller]

No I did not say that. I was talking about quotemining Clinton.

Here is what she actually said:

Right. Half of them are deplorable, and some, I assume, are good people...

Genius politics.

Way to go. You false equivalenced the hell outta that! You might give HL a run for his money!

 

[southernhybrid]

Deplorable are so sensitive. I mean the ones who are racists or xenophobic have no problem making gross generalization about those who are different from themselves. But let one politician say something unkind about them and they suddenly have their feelings hurt to the point where they can't forget that one insult for years.

They did the same thing when Obama said that some people cling to their guns and religion I didn't even perceive that as an insult. He was just stating a fact, but that was also taken out of context and used against Obama for years. Poor little snowflakes. My heart bleeds for them. I guess that's why they call me a bleeding heart liberal.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

No I did not say that. I was talking about quotemining Clinton.

Here is what she actually said:

Right. Half of them are deplorable, and some, I assume, are good people...

Genius politics.

Estimate: Half the Trump supporters I know are deplorable. For example, some of my in-laws are racist Trump supporters. The other half aren't. For example, I know some people at work who support Trump because of the economy and they are very naive otherwise.

Here's a poll based on recent current event:

On Sunday, Trump went on Twitter to tell four Congress members to “go back” to the “corrupt” countries they came from: Reps. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), Ilhan Omar (D-MN), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI). All four women are American citizens; three of the four were born in the US, and Omar left Somalia when she was 6, settling in the US at the age of 10.

...

A new poll indicates why GOP members are reluctant to chastise the president. Although a USA Today/Ipsos poll found that a majority of people, 68 percent, saw Trump’s tweets as offensive, there was a stark partisan divide: 93 percent of Democrats and 68 percent of independents found the tweet offensive, while only 37 percent of Republicans did, according to the poll, which was released on Wednesday. Meanwhile, 57 percent of Republicans said they agreed with Trump’s tweets, while only 7 percent of Democrats agreed.

https://www.vox.com/2019/7/17/20697721/trump-racist-tweet-polling

Genius politics.

We live in divisive times and I honestly believe Clinton said something factual in an effort to make a joke AND increase understanding of Republicans but to a Democrat audience: half of the Trump supporters can be reached because that half is decent. If you're talking to an individual liberal in private, it's a valuable thing to say. Publicly saying it where you can be recorded is extremely risky. Not genius. However, saying something like 100% of Democrats are puffs works for Trump.

Note the hypocrisy of him and his supporters....those who criticized Clinton but remain in support of him while being aware of his actual hasty genetalizations about groups of people.

My point has been that Republican pundits quotemined the basket of deplorables part, politically calculating how effective it would be.

Here's Limbaugh:

See now this, this goes to something that I have always accused the left of being. They stereotype anybody not them as a racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe.

https://www.mediamatters.org/rush-l...tempt-america-because-those-she-called-basket

He's reframing her talking about 50% of Trump supporters as 100% of non-Democrats. Then, he's accusing ALL the left of doing it.

1. Quotemining.
2. Hypocrisy.

Third rate dittoheads, many of whom knew they were exaggerating what Clinton said, did the same. They just blurt out "basket of deplorables" to reinforce the exaggeration. When it's done intentionally to exaggerate and quotemine, it's deplorable.

Whether Hillary's a genius or not doesn't have much to do with whether it's factual.

 

[James Brown]

When you hate someone, anything they say makes you furious.