Following the permanent banning of conservative commentator Milo Yiannopoulos from using its service; the suspension of the account of Glenn Reynolds, aka @instapundit and creator of the Instapundit blog, a University of Tennessee law professor and a conservative columnist for USA TODAY; and blocking veteran reporter Mahir Zeynalov after bowing to pressure from Turkish president Erdogan; last week saw the 'shadowbanning' of thoughtful - non-violent - twitter-er Scott Adams - the creator of the Dilbert cartoon character.
Following a blog post daring to discuss how "dangerous" Donald Trump was compared to Hillary Clinton... (excerpt below)
...the alleged risks of each candidate so you can see how they compare on the “scariness” dimension.
Alleged Clinton Risks
- Dementia risk (because of age)
- Low energy (maybe can’t perform the job)
- Temperament (alleged to yell and throw things)
- Might allow more terrorists into country via immigration
- Influenced by lobbyists to start wars (Eisenhower warned of this)
- Drinks alcohol (We don’t know how much or how often)
- General brain health is questionable lately
- Adversaries won’t know who she serves or how she will react.
Alleged Trump Risks
- Dementia risk (because of age)
- Trump is “literally Hitler” (This risk is cognitive dissonance, not real)
- Con man (Sure, but we’ll be watching him closely)
- Temperament (responds proportionately every time)
- Race riots (Clinton’s side created this risk by framing Trump as a racist)
- Inexperience (But Trump routinely succeeds where he has no experience)
If you think Trump is risky because of his “temperament” or because he is “literally Hitler” you are experiencing cognitive dissonance caused by Clinton’s persuasion game. I mean that literally. And remember that I’m a trained hypnotist. That doesn’t mean I’m always right, but it does mean I’m trained to spot cognitive dissonance and you probably aren’t.
I don’t think any of us is smart enough to evaluate the relative risk of either candidate. And that’s my point. If you think Trump is the dangerous one, that isn’t supported by his history, his patterns, or the facts. It is literally an illusion created by his opponents.
Scott Adams asked his followers for examples of Clinton supporters being violent against peaceful Trump supports in public... which seems to have 'triggered' some people and got Adams "Shadowbanned" from Twitter...
This weekend I got “shadowbanned” on Twitter. It lasted until my followers noticed and protested. Shadowbanning prevents my followers from seeing my tweets and replies, but in a way that is not obvious until you do some digging.
Why did I get shadowbanned?
But it was probably because I asked people to tweet me examples of Clinton supporters being violent against peaceful Trump supporters in public. I got a lot of them. It was chilling.
Late last week my Twitter feed was invaded by an army of Clinton trolls (it’s a real thing) leaving sarcastic insults and not much else on my feed. There was an obvious similarity to them, meaning it was organized.
At around the same time, a bottom-feeder at Slate wrote a hit piece on me that had nothing to do with anything. Except obviously it was politically motivated. It was so lame that I retweeted it myself. The timing of the hit piece might be a coincidence, but I stopped believing in coincidences this year.
All things considered, I had a great week. I didn’t realize I was having enough impact to get on the Clinton enemies list. I don’t think I’m supposed to be happy about any of this, but that’s not how I’m wired.
Mmm, critics. Delicious :-)
P.S. The one and only speaking gig I had on my calendar for the coming year cancelled yesterday because they decided to “go in a different direction.” I estimate my opportunity cost from speaking events alone to be around $1 million. That’s based on how the rate of offers went from several per month (for decades) to zero this year. Blogging about Trump is expensive.
But it is also a system, not a goal. I wrote a book about that.