2 Observations About Trump Support from the Interwebz 2Day
Here are two interesting things I’ve noticed using what experience I have as a former social media manager currently involved in linguistics research:
1. lol at Facebook’s algorithm picking up Laura Ingraham because her page has flood-posted and used subsidiary pages as well. Exact same post times are a dead giveaway. She is not trending organically.
Now, if these other pages are independently run, it is telling that their re-post times are in the same hour as the official Ingraham page because, as non-branded entities, that means the amateur page admins have nothing else to do but scan for more self-affirming content. This means they may work for a conservative candidate (and are therefore a propagandist) or they are unemployed.
2. If you look at the way many Trump supporters (and Hillary and Sanders and the Independents’ folks too, but separate observations) speak and write, and the nuances of their personal rhetoric trends, you can actually spot potential psychological or life experience triggers that expose the underlying impetus for their socio-political condition.
Why does the woman in the recent “viral” CNN video keep jumping between her gross, blood-libelesque myth about abortion and praising her pristine life and children. What is that masking in her personal experience, especially when she is brought on to talk about Trump’s sexual assault commentary?
Semantically, talking about murdering children and raising children in the same train of thought is more curious than it seems when you just hear it. Why are the two extremes being compared, unprovoked, on this stage? I am candidly speculating, but maybe that’s important instead of politicizing. This woman may have some serious trouble at home, with her family, or have had a bad past experience with children.
Subtext and legitimate psychology have not been investigated enough in this political cycle.
Meanwhile, back in the (limited) Ingraham re-posts, I saw a man call what I assume is the current establishment (or the elite?) the “consultant class.” This is a fascinating psychological tell. While I have not the infallible answer, one must ask: Why is this person using the word “consultant” like that? Surely he can’t believe consulting is such a widespread industry or that there are so many consultants out there, let alone in Washington? Is he confusing lobbyists with consultants?
Why is he targeting consultants? Well, it could very easily just be a terminological flub. A misnomer in the heat of the moment.
Or maybe this is a Freudian slip that speaks volumes (to which so few on the other side of the spectrum seem to listen). With job disintegration in the industrial sector and below management in the corporate world, it would not shock me that the consultant (or assumed consultant) brought in to make layoffs has become this man’s Satan, which he has affixed as the figurehead of the system he feels controls and slights him.
It is tragic. I have seen friends and family members of mine fall apart like this in their personal grievances. “Crazy Ex” Syndrome on high octane. When it comes to Trump, he is the liberator this man has foolishly chosen when in reality the only person who can save him is himself.
Subtext and legitimate psychology have not been investigated enough in this political cycle.
Yes, these people have been bamboozled, tricked, baited, and they are hateful, but they are still humans with clear signs of emotional and psychological distress that must not be mocked or downplayed because neglecting it is what fuelled them in the first place.
