Scott Adams Isn't Very Persuasive

If you didn't know, Scott Adams spends most of his time these days talking about his interest in persuasion. Which makes his post about how to "un-hypnotize" anti-Trumpers so hilariously bad. I mean, for a guy who is so obviously proud about being "studied in the arts of persuasion" you'd think he'd realize the the points that he makes are uniformly awful and not be so proud of them, so lets go through them one-by-one.

Adams lists the four main arguments he's heard from anti-Trumpers, they are:

"Objection 1: Trump is a loose cannon who might offend other countries and maybe even start a nuclear war.
Objection 2: Trump is terrible at business because he has several bankruptcies.
Objection 3: Trump is a racist.
Objection 4: Trump is anti-women and anti-LGBT"

Those are all pretty solid objections to have against Trump, so let's see what brilliance Adams unleashes to convince people who can't see the The Donald's competence behind that exquisite Day-Glo sheen of his.  Adams counters the first point by saying this:

 "How risky is Trump? Consider that Trump has never had an alcoholic beverage. He was against the Iraq war. He doesn’t want boots on the ground in Syria. He wants a strong military to discourage war. Trump personally gains nothing from war, but he has a lot to lose, including every building with his name on it."

Um, alright then. I mean, you don't need alcohol to be an asshole who makes terrible decisions. Reverend Billy Sunday thought by banning the sale and consumption of alcohol the country would become a more moral place with less crime and degeneracy since they wouldn't be driven by evil spirits in a bottle.  That didn't really work out so well, but hey, he didn't drink so it must of a good idea.  And Trump, like John Kerry, was for the war before he was against it. And the no ground troops bit is complete and utter bullshit, too.  Out of four sentences, we have two that are totally false, and two that are utterly irrelevant. Not exactly a great start.

Adams next counterpoint is how some global leaders already like Trump, namely, Putin:

"Putin already seems to like Trump. They are similar characters in terms of their persuasion talents. And it wouldn’t hurt to be on good terms with Russia while we go after ISIS. Trump seems to have that relationship covered."

Here's the thing though, Putin doesn't like Trump because they're long lost BFF's bonding over hair-care and which own can take down the biggest bear. Rather, Putin wants Trump because he can so clearly see that Trump is a vainglorious fool who can be played almost on auto-pilot. Putin knows Russia doesn't have the same clout or power to influence global events as the U.S. does, so instead of trying to meet his enemy on a level playing field, he facilitates his enemy to make mistakes which he can then profit from. And a Trump Presidency is quite easily the biggest mistake the U.S. could ever make, so Putin will do all he can to make that idea more enticing to as many fools as he can.  It's almost like Putin is manipulating or persuading people to his position without them realizing. Curious, that.

Moving on, this is Adams' defense of Trump and all his bankruptcies:

"Ask how many bankruptcies Trump has had. Most people say between 5-10. Then ask how many entities Trump has his name on. The answer is about 500... Trump puts his name on various products and he gets paid even if the product or company does poorly in the end. That’s an example of Trump taking the LEAST risk in a deal. The other parties take larger risks and frequently fail."

Conveniently left out of this persuasion is how all of those bankruptcies were the companies Trump had a direct role in managing. Also, there is no licensing option when it comes to the Presidency; Trump can't just stick his fucking name across the White House and then leave all the risk and decision-making to other people. And, if I may point this out, trying to sell the "Fuck you, I got mine" strategy Trump as had regarding business as a solid plan to govern multiple disparate and conflicting groups of people is perhaps not the smartest move to make.

Next up is Trump's racism, which is, well, see for yourself:

"Trump has never mentioned race beyond pointing how how many African-Americans and Latinos support him. Ask your anti-Trumper to offer evidence otherwise. Then point out…
Mexico is a country, not a race.
Islam is open to all races.
If the topic of Judge Curiel comes up, point out that all human beings are biased by their life experiences. Ask anti-Trumpers if they think Curiel would be comfortable at his next family gathering if his verdict favors Trump. (Notice the question form of persuasion again.)
Acknowledge that Trump was offensive when he attacked the judge’s parental connections to Mexico. But note that it is also good persuasion and good legal strategy. It puts the judge in the tough spot of either siding with Trump or appearing biased if he does not.
Then point out that only the Democrats are talking about race. And all of that race talk has been divisive. Trump has literally never said a negative thing about race during this election."

 I mean, wow. For a guy who makes his living crafting words to form double-entendres and puns, Adams is being pretty obtuse about how language works and what words mean when we use them.  Yes, of course Mexico is a country, but when people say Mexicans, what they mean is people of Hispanic descent and use Mexicans the same way we say someone is White.  And yes, Islam is open to all races and ethnicity's, but when people say "Islamic", especially in the U.S., they are using it to signify that the person is an Arab.  There is no way Adams doesn't know these things, this argument seems more to be built on having a reason to hate anyone stupid enough to actually believe it than sound logic.

But, apparently he does think it's a good argument since he keeps it up with his discussion of Judge Curiel.  Adams is again trying to make a point by hiding what actually happened; Trump never said that Curiel was biased because of his life experience; he said specifically and repeatedly that Curiel was unqualified because of his ethnic background and only his ethnic background.  When even Paul fucking Ryan can't escape the fact that what you said is racist as hell, it's pretty fair to say Trump is racist and the people arguing otherwise either don't care or fully agree with him.  As far as it being good legal strategy, you might want to ask his lawyers how they feel about that since they patently refused to ask for the recusal and all but begged their client to shut his mouth in public.

Finally, we get to women and the LGBT community, which is another thing that has to be seen in full to be appreciated:

"Trump is the only candidate calling out Islam for its followers’ views on women and the LGBT community.
Trump wants women to have the right to own guns to protect themselves.
Trump is the only candidate concerned about crimes against women that are perpetrated by illegal immigrants from Mexico.
Trump has a long business record of promoting women to executive positions in his company. He was doing it years before it was fashionable.
The women in his personal life – including his ex-wives – seem to like him.
Trump is offensive in the way he has talked about women. But keep in mind that Trump has offended nearly everyone at some point."

It's at this point that I really wish I could say Adams is just a troll, but there is such an obvious pride in how intelligent and genius these points that just make it impossible.  There's no courage in how Islam treats women and LGBT people half a world away when he is silent on how women and LGBT people are treated by Christians here at home.  It's not Muslims clerics or Muslims calling for Leviticus laws in regards to gay people, it's not Muslims who have spent decades stripping away the Constitutional protections of Roe vs. Wade and it sure as shit hasn't been Muslims who have fought the Equal Rights Amendment since the day it started. Women already have the right to buy as many guns as they want, so, again, nothing special here.  Remind me again why Trump isn't racist when he talks about the illegal Mexicans coming to rape the white women and how he's the only one who can stop them?  Notably, only one point actually addresses the things that Trump has said about women, but Adams dismisses it so quickly and so abruptly it really gives the impression that he doesn't see anything wrong with Trump's comments and that women reactions are just you know, the usual hysterical women shit.

The only thing Adams gets right about Trump is that he has a talent for making people believe in him and that he was able to correctly read the Republican base. The political class has for a long time been in complete denial that Republican policy positions were based in anything other than flat out bigotry and xenophobia, so Trump recognized that he if he tapped into that he would be pretty much golden. As for his ability to make people believe, of course he has that, all con men from snake-oil salesmen to televangelists have that ability, it's literally the only way they can make a living. The point, however, isn't just to sit there and gawk about how amazing they are at bullshitting but to peak behind the curtain and see if there's actually any substance to the person. And really, if your favorite thing about a candidate is how good they are at manipulation, that's a sign to stop and ask yourself why you've been stocking up on so much Kool-Aid lately.