Parents please be aware and very cautious of what you hear that your child watches on YouTube and KIDS YOUTUBE. There is a hoax called “Momo” that’s making parents think that it’s instructing kids to kill themselves, using bad grammar to talk about leaving stoves on while everyone is sleep and even making parents think it’s threatening to kill the children if they tell their parents about this thing they’ve never heard of. The hoax comes on instantly so it’s almost as if it doesn’t wait for you to fact check it if it comes on mid show. It hasn’t been seen on Peppa Pig, LOL DOLL (There’s a show called LOL DOLL?), those surprise eggs (I don’t even know what this means), or any other apparently real shows. There’s also not (in the context of this hoax) videos of cartoons doing sexual things, violent things and they may look innocent enough at first glance but trust they aren’t!
PLEASE PAY ATTENTION!!!! INFORM EVERYONE YOU CAN THAT THIS IS NOT REAL
SHARE THAT THIS IS NOT REAL! Updated: There’s been numerous confirmations since I made this post of parents who think the Momo Hoax is real and whose children think this whole thing is hilarious.
THIS IS A JOKE!!!!
PLEASE DON’T REPORT THINGS THAT AREN’T REAL AND YOU CAN SEE OTHER PEOPLE DO IT INSTEAD BECAUSE SOMEONE IS GOING TO THINK IT’S REAL AND REPORT IT AND WHY DO YOU WANT TO BE THAT PERSON WHEN IT’S NOT REAL IN THE FIRST PLACE!
Were there Irish slaves in the Americas?
Over the past few years, I’ve heard claims there were Irish slaves in the Americas. Were there? If by “slaves,” you mean, “not slaves,” then yes. But, if there weren’t Irish slaves, then why are there claims that there were?
As with many things that aren’t true, we have a Holocaust denier to thank for this one. Specifically, Michael A. Hoffman II, who in 1993 decided to take a break from anti-Semitism to write the book, “They Were White and They Were Slaves: The Untold History of the Enslavement of Whites in Early America.” Ah, who am I kidding – he also said Jews were responsible for the Atlantic slave trade. Some men see things as they are and say why; Michael A. Hoffman II dreams things that never were and says, why not make this anti-Semitic? This may be giving you the wrong impression, though. While Hoffman is first and foremost a Holocaust denier, he proved more than capable of denying other parts of history, too. We also have other people to thank for this myth, like Sean O’Callaghan, who helped popularize it with his book, “From Hell to Barbados: The Ethnic Cleansing of Ireland.” This book claimed, among other things, that Irish women were forcibly bred with African slaves – a claim for which there is zero evidence. In fact, if you know anything about the history of racism, you know that white women having sex with black men was long viewed by white society as pretty much the worst thing ever. There were laws all over the English colonies, then the United States, expressly forbidding it (while staying surprisingly silent on white men having sex with black women).
When the British had American colonies, many people from Ireland (and other places) came over. It was expensive to travel across the Atlantic, so many came as indentured servants. This meant that someone else would pay for their travel, then they would be their servant or worker for a set number of years (up to seven). While most of the people did this willingly, some came…not so willingly. And, even those who came willingly were sometimes doing so to escape less-than-ideal social or economic circumstances. As the name implies, indentured servants were servants. Some of them were abused and some were treated harshly. So, if some people were forced to become indentured servants, some were abused, and they were doing forced labor, why WEREN’T they slaves?
When you became an indentured servant, you signed a contract. You had access to the courts. When your time was up, you were supposed to be freed. You were the only one bound by your contract. And, even if every single one of these was abused by the person you were indebted to, at the end of the day…you were white. The laws governing African slaves were much harsher than those governing indentured servants. African slavery was what is known as “chattel slavery,” which means that enslaved people were treated as the private property of owners. They could be bought or sold, and their children would also be slaves. Chattel slaves had no rights. They couldn’t testify in court. They could be executed to deter other slaves from rising up against masters. If your owner didn’t free you or you didn’t somehow escape, you were born a slave and died a slave. As did your children, and their children, and so on. Simply put, an indentured servant was considered a person. A slave was not. The 3/5’s Compromise only applied to African slaves and their descendants, not indentured servants. It’s important to remember the discrimination faced by the Irish in the colonial period and beyond, but they were NOT slaves.
So, if the Irish weren’t slaves, why does this myth persist? First, there is a legitimate history of discrimination against the Irish, going from English-controlled Ireland all the way to the United States. This myth feeds into that history of discrimination. The second reason, and the reason this myth came about in the first place, is racism. As I mentioned before, an anti-Semitic Holocaust denier is the main reason this myth exists. And, where anti-Semitism goes, racism often follows. The Irish slave myth is very popular on racist websites, because it allows racists to minimize African slavery by claiming there were white slaves at the same time. Some also use it to minimize racism in general. There is a history of racism in the United States, but claiming that white people were just as discriminated against as every other race makes everybody sound equally oppressed.
Since the Irish weren’t slaves, there’s no evidence that they were. So, proponents have to either distort history or make it up altogether. Distortions include taking literally when the Irish are called “slaves” figuratively. Or, saying photographs or paintings of other groups of people (like Holocaust victims, child laborers, or ancient Roman slaves) are actually of Irish slaves. Sometimes proponents will even try to claim that a well-documented tragedy about African slaves was actually about Irish slaves. This happened, for example, with the Zong massacre, in which an English slave ship threw African slaves overboard to try to collect insurance on them. Then, there are blatant lies, like the claim that King James I sent thousands of Irish prisoners to the West Indies to work as slaves in 1625. It would have been quite a feat, since James I wasn’t born until 1633.
There’s no need to make up discrimination against the Irish, since history has plenty of real examples. And, while there were certainly abuses of indentured servitude, the rules for indentured servants were never as bad as they were for African slaves. In one you were a person; in the other, you were a product. Also, the myth of Irish slavery was created by an anti-Semite and is actively promoted by racist groups, so there’s that…
Rules for Radical(ly Stripping Minorities of Their Right)s
When you’re in charge, how do you know what rights you should take away, and from whom? Here are a few questions to ask yourself when making such a decision:
1) How big is the minority?
The smaller the minority, the easier to strip them of their rights.
2) How influential is the minority?
The less influential the minority, the less people will care if you strip them of their rights.
3) How recently has the minority really been able to take advantage of the rights?
The less recently the minority has won its rights, the less outcry there will be when they lose them.
4) Do you feel lucky?
It’s almost unprecedented in American history for the government to take rights from a minority after they’ve been won. Better have your i’s dotted and your t’s crossed.
5) Is there a religious angle?
The more you can link the minority having rights to bad religious things, the more successfully you can remove those rights.
6) Is there some way you can make the minority seem dangerous to kids?
If the children are our future, and you can make it sound like minority rights that have nothing to do with children are actually dangerous to them, odds are good you can get rid of those rights.
7) Is there a financial angle?
Once you start throwing around numbers in the millions and billions, people have trouble keeping up with whatever you’re making up. Throw some random M’s and B’s out to make the minority sound vaguely expensive, and you can make it sound like rights removal will save money.
8) Is there a military angle?
The American military is one of the best there is. The more you can convince people that a minority right can easily distract some of the most focused people in the world, the more likely you can take away that right.
9) Are you indifferent to your legacy?
If so, you’re in luck! Since minority rights are almost never taken away, odds are the minority will get them back, and your legacy will be severely tarnished. But, if you don’t care about your legacy, full steam ahead! At this rate, you may be able to break Rules 1-8 and strip even more minorities of their rights! Your short term cup runneth over! The world is yours for the taking for a little while! It’s easier for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle than for your logic to make sense 20 years from now!
I hope this has been a helpful primer for the leader who wants to strip rights from minorities. It’s really not that hard, as long as you don’t care about decency, morality, or doing the right thing. And, since two wrongs make a right, as long as you keep your wrongs even, you can keep going forever!
Bashar al-Assad sucks at conspiracy theories
There was recently a sarin gas attack in Syria, perpetrated by the Syrian government against a rebel-controlled area. Over 80 people were killed, including children. In response, the United States fired 59 Tomahawk missiles at the facility thought to house the country’s chemical weapons. But, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad claims the sarin attack didn’t actually happen. How do we know it did? Simple: Bashar al-Assad sucks at conspiracy theories. He may kill me for saying that, but at least everyone will know it was him – dude couldn’t make it look like someone else stole a pencil, much less killed somebody. So, if you’re still alive, give that pencil back to him, because Bashar al-Assad’s about to go to Conspiracy School…
Conspiracy Lesson 1: Make your conspiracy theory sound logical.
The most recent conspiracy theory being pushed by Assad is that the United States somehow staged the recent gas attack as a pretext to attack Syria. The problem here is that Trump spent the entire campaign running against attacking Syria, had previously said Obama shouldn’t attack Syria even if they used chemical weapons, and was even talking about not going into Syria a few days before the attack. Add in the fact that he sometimes makes split-second decisions based on what he just saw on TV, and what’s more likely – that the US staged a big gas attack so they could shoot at buildings, or that the Syrian government killed a bunch of people with gas, Trump saw the terrible aftermath on TV, and he and his advisers decided to attack where more gas was stored?
Conspiracy Lesson 2: Don’t leave fingerprints all over your conspiracy theory.
The gas attack is the most recent example of an Assad conspiracy theory, but it’s not the first. As a brutal dictator, Assad lives in a patented Dictator Echo Chamber (DEC), which means it’s incomprehensible that people could dislike him (because, you know, they all get killed). When the Syrian Civil War started, he claimed all the people fighting against him were either from outside of Syria or were being persuaded not to like him from outside of Syria. At the same time, he was playing all the Syrian rebel groups against each other to weaken them and doing things like releasing terrorists from Syrian prisons to radicalize them. In other words, Assad A) is a terrible guy who most Syrians hate, B) actively tried to make the people who hate him hate each other more, C) tried to radicalize the people who hated him so the international community wouldn’t get involved, and D) tried to blame everything on international conspiracies. Of course, outside countries and groups now support various rebel groups in the country. But, the war started because Syrians hated Assad, not because non-Syrians did.
Conspiracy Lesson 3: Make sure everyone pushing your conspiracy theory is on the same page.
It has to be killing Assad’s biggest ally, Russia, that he’s so bad at conspiracy theories. During the Cold War, Russia perfected conspiracy theories to an art form. Now, they can’t even get a dictator they’re basically propping up on the same page. Worse, Assad’s claim that the whole attack was faked undercuts his own army, which said that “terrorists” carried out the attack. Certainly, there are times when conflicting conspiracies can muddy the waters about what actually happened, but when you’re trying to make it look like you’re not guilty of something, the opposite is true. In this case, Russia’s claim (Syria struck a building that had rebel-controlled gas, releasing it) and the army’s claim (The rebels intentionally released the gas) already don’t match up, so adding a third view may as well be removing the mud altogether.
Conspiracy Lesson 4: If you’re going to deny the facts on the ground, at least have some kind of explanation for discounting them.
If you’re claiming the opposite of everything that actually happened is what actually happened, you have to come up with some alternative explanation. Think, “magic bullet,” or “Jet fuel doesn’t melt steel beams” – two classic examples of ridiculous explanations designed to make it look like the facts don’t add up. When Assad claims there was no sarin attack at all, he discounts the dead people, the people who examined the dead people, the injured people, the people who examined the injured people, the video evidence, the satellite evidence, and all the other evidence. He’s also discounting the fact that he’s carried out chemical attacks before, although he claimed those attacks were actually carried out by rebel groups. Which brings us to…
Conspiracy Lesson 5: Be consistent.
Like I said before, it’s important to be on the same page as other people pushing your conspiracy theory. It’s also important to be on the same page AS YOURSELF. See, this isn’t the first time Assad’s used chemical weapons against Syrians. It’s not even the first time he’s tried to come up with a conspiracy theory to claim he didn’t do it. It is, however, the first time he’s claimed a chemical attack was completely fake. In the past, he’s said rebel groups committed attacks to try and frame him, so the international community would get involved on their side (Hey, I told you he sucks at these things.). Now, he’s suddenly saying an attack was fake? Dude, nothing’s going to make you look like a Syrial killer more than changing your story every time you’re obviously the one carrying out an attack. People who think Americans never landed on the moon don’t randomly say the fifth mission there was real but the rest were fake; they stay consistent.
Had Assad followed these simple rules, he might have been able to turn his conspiracy hypothesis into a conspiracy theory. But, I guess when you’re a brutal dictator who always gets his way, you get used to doing things the easy way…
Sex fear rights: A time-tested method for defeating civil rights
President Trump recently reversed an Obama executive order that said schools had to let transgender students use the restrooms, locker rooms, and other facilities of the sex they identify with. This reversal marked a landmark achievement for the coalition of states’ rights and sex fear rights. However, while a major victory, it was far from their first. You see, when a historically discriminated minority pushes for civil rights, it’s tough to argue they shouldn’t have them. Civil rights are supposed to be for everybody, so how can you deny them to a specific group? Well, centuries of denying rights to various minorities have produced at least two effective arguments. The first is states’ rights: The right of a state to decide who to discriminate against and who not to. The second is what you could call, “sex fear rights”: If the minority is given equal rights, it will somehow result in the rape, molestation, or sexual assault of some other group or groups.
Perhaps the most well-documented example of the states’ rights/sex fear rights coalition (SRSFRC) involves discrimination against blacks. For centuries, white people used the argument that if black people were freed/integrated/allowed into society, they would quickly use the opportunity to rape white women. Indeed, the longevity of the white-women-will-be-raped argument is amazing. The states’ rights argument lasted as long, but it had to adapt every time the federal government came in and changed something. States can’t decide to have slaves anymore and have to let blacks vote? No problem – we’ll just pass harsh laws that only apply to black people, and put up obstacles that make it impossible for them to vote. States have to provide services to white people AND black people? No problem – we’ll just separate them and give white stuff more funding.
But, what if you can’t convince people that civil rights will rape white women? What if you’re denying rights to, say, gay people? Have no fear – well, actually have lots of fear. For, what at first seems like a challenge turns out to be a boon. Are gay people trying to get into the military? Just say that they’ll sexually assault members of their own sex. Are they trying to get into positions of authority over children? Just say they’ll molest those children. And, since women can be gay, you can extend sex fears from WHITE women to ALL women. And, since homosexuality has to do with sexual attraction, you can make up whatever sex act you want and attach it to gay people. Want to stop gay marriage? Say allowing men to marry men and women to marry women will inevitably lead to polygamy, animalygamy, and toasterovenygamy. Don’t want gay people to be seen as human? Just make up some sexual acts with things no one ever dreamed of, and you’re good. The states’ rights argument is pretty straightforward – say that your state doesn’t want to allow gay rights because, well, just look at all that stuff the sex fear rights people are saying. Also, once you’ve got people good and propagandized, have them vote against it. Indeed, both these arguments have proven so successful, there are still many legal discriminations against gay people.
Unfortunately for the SRSFRC, fighting gay rights has increasingly been seen as a losing battle. So, they moved on to another group: transgender people. Although the transgender community has been included in some legislation protecting other LGBTQ groups, they still have a long way to go, and there are some issues unique to them. That’s why so much of the press in recent years has been about access to restrooms, locker rooms, and other facilities that match their gender of preference.
Here’s where sex fear rights proponents really showed their creativity: Instead of directly attacking transgender people, they targeted phantom child molesters. You see, transgender people want to use restrooms that identify with their gender of preference, because they identify with that gender. There’s a bunch of science behind why that is, but if there are two things that trump science, they’re sex fear rights and states’ rights. Proponents of sex fear rights decided, rather than target the imaginary perversity of transgender people themselves, they’d say that child molesters might PRETEND to be transgender, so they could go to the wrong restroom and molest children. There’s no evidence this ever happened, but there’s no evidence a gay person ever had sex with an electrical outlet, either. The states’ rights side didn’t have much trouble: Obama signed that executive order, and nothing gases up the states’ rights tank like the federal government telling states what to do. The original anti-transgender state bills that had passed (popularly known as “bathroom bills”) were based on the phantom child molester argument, but when Trump rescinded the federal order, he invoked states’ rights.
Transgender rights are proving to be a fertile ground for the states’ rights/sex fear rights coalition, and they’re still having some luck fighting gay rights. But, if history is any guide, these wells will eventually dry up. What minority group will they fight next? And, what people will they pretend are at risk of sexual assault if that group gets rights?
Crawl & Order: Federal Intent
In the federal justice system, the precedents are represented by two separate, yet equally important, groups: the Democrats, who get rid of filibusters for all non-Supreme Court justices, and the Republicans, who refuse to let new Supreme Court justices in when they don’t hold the presidency.
Now that a new president has nominated a new Supreme Court justice, which side of the irony will blink first? Will it be the Democrats, who threaten to filibuster the new nominee? Or, will it be the Republicans, who threaten to get rid of filibusters for Supreme Court nominees?
How to Be Racist without Being Racist
We’re all familiar with racists. They’re usually pretty easy to pick out of a crowd, what with their pointy hoods, swastikas and loose use of words that rhyme with animals (chigger, tick, donkey, mink…). In fact, some people would argue that it’s only these people that truly fall into the category of racist.
But, just so we’re sure that we know who’s racist and who’s not, many people find it useful to remind us how not racist they are before they say something racist. For example, using a phrase like, “I’m not racist, but…” before saying something racist reminds the listener that, though they are hearing something racist that the speaker believes, it’s okay, because the speaker has assured him or her that he or she is not, in fact, racist.
I’ll use an example to help clarify. In this example, Ralph is telling Ted about his neighborhood:
Ralph: I live in a really loud neighborhood.
Ted: What color are your neighbors?
Ralph: Uh…I guess most of them are black?
Ted: I’m not racist, but black people are really loud.
Ralph: …
See, what Ted has said here is okay, because he has assured Ralph that he is not, in fact, racist. Had he not prefaced his racist statement with, “I’m not racist, but…,” Ralph might have mistaken someone who says something racist for someone who is racist.
Another useful phrase, though usually put after something racist rather than before it, is, “I have lots of (offended race) friends,” or “My best friend is (offended race).” Clearly, someone who has friends of the race that they are insulting can’t possibly be racist.
In this example, Fred is telling John about his boss:
Fred: My boss didn’t pay me for working overtime like he said he would.
John: What color is he?
Fred: He’s white. Why?
John: You just can’t trust white people.
Fred: …
John: I mean, I don’t have anything against white people. I have lots of white friends. In fact, my best friend is white.
Fred: …
In this scenario, John manages to use both of our example quotes, to hammer home the point that he is not racist.
These racist escape clauses can be very useful to people who wish to be racist but don’t want to be racist. As a general rule, though, they tend to be said in the presence of people who are not members of the race being criticized. This is understandable, of course, because if a member of the offended race was around, he or she might mistake something racist for being something racist.
So, what do you do if you want to say something racist to a member of the race you are offending? How can you convince him or her that you’re just saying something racist and that you’re not actually being racist?
At first glance, this seems like a difficult problem, but it can actually be solved with three simple words: “No offense, but…” Because, it’s okay to criticize an entire race, as long as the person you are talking to doesn’t get offended. That way, you have managed not only to convince someone else that you are not racist – you have managed to convince someone of the race you offended that you are not racist.
Let’s use one more example. Here, we have Kim, who is Asian, and Carol, who is not:
Carol: No offense, but Asians all look alike.
Kim: …
Here, Carol has performed a masterstroke – she has managed to say something racist to a person of the very race she is offending, without being racist.
There are, of course, many other racist escape clauses, including, but not limited to:
– “I’m not being racist, because I know this (offended race) person who does that.”
– “There are two types of (offended race) – (derogatory term) and (offended
race).”
I hope this primer on non-racist racism has been helpful. As you can see, there are countless ways to be racist without actually being racist…
To understand why we have the Electoral College, just remember the Three C’s
The Electoral College has officially selected Donald Trump to be president, which means it can go back to not existing for the next four years. This year was pretty rough for the EC, largely because Trump won the electoral vote but lost the popular vote. It’s not the first time that’s happened: John “Quincy ME” Adams, Rutherford “Bye Bye Reconstruction” Hayes, Benjamin “I’m Totally Going to Get Reelected You Guys” Harrison, and George W. “Unfinished Business” Bush also won the popular vote without winning the Electoral College. But, I’m not bringing up the EC because I like to give forgotten presidents nicknames. I’m bringing it up because this whole situation has gotten a lot of people asking, “Why do we have the Electoral College?”
That’s simple. If you want to know why the Framers of the Constitution created the Electoral College, all you have to do is remember the Three C’s: Closing Time, Compromise, and Can’t Everybody Just Be George Washington?
Closing Time: As with most colleges, procrastination played a major role in the Electoral College. Indeed, so many things were put off in the Constitutional Convention, they had their own committee: The Committee of Eleven on Postponed Matters. Strange as it sounds, the method for selecting the president didn’t get much attention until the very end. Throughout the Convention, most members just assumed the president would either be elected by state legislatures or by Congress. Which brings us to…
Compromise: If you’ve ever wondered why so much of the Constitution is vague, ambiguous, or unusually focused on fractions of slaves, this is why. Convention attendees were obsessed with compromise. This was partly because they weren’t actually SUPPOSED to be writing a new constitution – they were just supposed to be fixing problems with the existing one, the Articles of Confederation. They also wanted something more stable than the Articles, so they needed to get everyone on board. When they finally got around to how to elect the president, some members objected to having Congress pick the president (It would make the president too beholden to Congress) or to having state legislatures pick them (It would make them too beholden to state legislatures.). At the same time, proponents of these methods objected to a popular vote, as they felt it could result in a demagogue being elected. It was in this atmosphere that everyone asked the question…
Can’t Everybody Just Be George Washington?: Although Washington was at the Convention, he didn’t contribute much to the actual writing. However, he was so highly respected that whenever it seemed he disapproved of something, members scrambled to change it more to his liking. Also, everyone assumed Washington would be the first president, and everyone assumed he’d be a good one. In addition to having a compromise between the popular vote and the not popular vote, the writers wanted to make sure that subsequent presidents would be as good as it was assumed Washington would be. The Electoral College was created in this atmosphere. Electors would be a line of defense between voters, whose passions frequently change, and the presidency. As political parties didn’t yet exist and campaigning for one’s self was looked down upon, the EC could also be a way to help select the best candidates.
As with many things in the Constitution, current arguments for and against the Electoral College are way different now than they were at its writing. Sure, the one about how someone can win the popular vote and lose the presidency is still there, but no one’s arguing Congress or state legislatures should choose the president instead. But, as society changes (Political parties didn’t exist when the Constitution was written; campaigning for one’s self was looked down upon; only white landowning males could vote), so do justifications for and against the EC. And, it’s not like the EC itself hasn’t changed: Its numbers are based on the number of senators and representatives, which was originally supposed to continue to grow with the country’s population. Instead, various laws have resulted in that number being capped at 538, instead of continuing to grow (which would have resulted in several thousand more representatives and electors). Finally, it should be noted that states are free to develop their own methods for choosing electors. While most have gone with a winner-take-all system, a few go by congressional district instead, and in some states it’s illegal for electors to go against the state’s popular vote, while in others it’s not. Due to these and other factors, arguments for and against the Electoral College – as well as who is on which side of the debate – have changed throughout its history.
Are we entering a new Golden Age of Conspiracy Theories?
Election Season is over, but that doesn’t mean conspiracy theories have to be. Why, just the other day I heard that protesters are being paid to protest election results. Journalists who’ve investigated these claims have found no evidence for them, but like I always say, “The absence of evidence is the evidence of evidence.” After all, people in America never protest, especially over election results. What other explanation is there? They MUST have been paid.
But wait – there’s more. Even President-Elect Trump has gotten in on the action. While the official vote count has Mr. Trump winning the electoral vote and losing the popular vote, he insists he actually won both, because millions of people voted illegally. What evidence does he have that millions of people voted illegally? You guessed it – none. Put another way, Mr. Trump has as much evidence for his claim of massive voter fraud as I have for my claim that he’s the King Midas of Truth.
So, are we entering a new, Golden Age of Conspiracy Theories? I certainly hope so. The real world is just so boring, random, and factual. Or is it? Maybe that’s just what they WANT me to think…
What happens if Donald Trump loses? Donfirmation bias, that’s what.
If Donald Trump loses tomorrow, will he concede? Will he contest? Will he say the whole process was rigged? It all depends on what he said he’d do. That may sound simple enough, but you have to remember that only Mr. Trump can tell you what he said – not his campaign, not the media, and certainly not recordings.
While most politicians have mastered the arts of plausible deniability, false equivalence, and basic damage control, newcomers to the political scene don’t always have that luxury. They must develop their own ways to deal with inconvenient news cycles, opponent attacks, and unforced errors. Such is the case with Mr. Trump, who has established his own method: Donfirmation Bias.
Donfirmation Bias means never having to say you’re wrong. When Mr. Trump says something, even if all evidence appears to the contrary, he has to either stick with what he said or deny having said it in the first place. He has to find sources that agree with him and ignore or attack those that don’t. Neutral or nuanced stories must be interpreted to agree. This is why scandals that sink other politicians don’t sink Mr. Trump: He either didn’t do them, they were misreported, or they were the right thing to do. But, don’t confuse Donfirmation Bias for hardheadedness. A lot of work goes into it. When a claim Mr. Trump has made appears to be false, he has to put in a lot of time and effort to find sources that agree with him. It also requires being a principled chameleon, so when he does change his mind, he does it so completely, he can later deny it.
The closer a presidential election gets to Voting Day, the more supporters of a candidate will close ranks and defend their candidate against anything negative. Voters are also more likely to focus on the negatives of the opposing candidate when challenged on the negatives of their own. Thus, Mr. Trump’s (and Ms. Clinton’s) own supporters feed into the notion that what they are doing must be right. In other words, voter confirmation bias reinforces Donfirmation Bias.
Donfirmation Bias may at first appear to be a bad way to run a campaign. But, what at first appears to be a fatal flaw – that Mr. Trump is always right – is in fact its greatest strength. You see, Mr. Trump has contended that the election is rigged, and he has said that the only way he can lose is if Ms. Clinton, the media, and/or the establishment has rigged it in her favor. Therefore, even if he loses, he wins. It’s as true now as it was when he said it in the primaries. Ms. Clinton may have an arsenal of non sequiturs and the best crisis management team money can buy, but she has conceded that, if Mr. Trump wins the election, he will have won the election.
But, what if Mr. Trump concedes? That’s an easy one – it’s what he will have said he’d do all along…
Plaid Hyenas 