"What does your mom think about it", babying power move by Tucker Carlson
I was listening to some interviews by Tucker Carlson as the guy is a power move mill.
Then stumbled upon this one that was both great and funny at the same time and actually made me laugh:
Her: "bla bla bla"
Tucker: (pause) so you're from an affluent family, what does your mom think of this
LOL, such an interesting babying power move.
It's indirect, but subtly and smartly frames her as:
- Spoiled limousine liberal
- Not walking the talk ("your family is affluent, but are you paying more than you should like you preach?)
And the babying power move part:
- A kid who hasn't yet reckoned with the true authority: her mom
She partially falls for it and starts discussing first what her parents do.
She also makes the mistake of saying "we're not in the top 1%", which makes her sound like she indeed a spoiled kid, but still wants others to pay more, and that weakens her argument.
And taker pounces on that:
"So you're asking other people to give money to the government"
Just watching the body language, it's clear who the winning person in this debate is. Tucker is keeping carefully controlled expressions, straight eye contact and a skeptical look (judge role) while she is reacting to him, moving much more energetically and in erratic patterns. Furthermore, his questions are swift and precise while she's rambling on and sounds like she's rehearsing instead of thinking things through. Not a good position to be in.
It's not as high level as Putin, not even close, but I think Tucker's using a form of the cold-blooded style, combined with intellectual dominance. A powerful combination. I observed that a common strength - and weakness - of the liberal left is their emotionality. On the one hand, it makes them more accessible to many people. On the other, it's easier to lure them into traps, like what Tucker and Shapiro do. As I like to say, every strength contains its weakness, and vice versa.
Fascinating video.
every strength contains its weakness, and vice versa.
something to really ponder about!
Quote from Kellvo on September 29, 2020, 8:24 pmJust watching the body language, it's clear who the winning person in this debate is. Tucker is keeping carefully controlled expressions, straight eye contact and a skeptical look (judge role) while she is reacting to him, moving much more energetically and in erratic patterns. Furthermore, his questions are swift and precise while she's rambling on and sounds like she's rehearsing instead of thinking things through. Not a good position to be in.
It's not as high level as Putin, not even close, but I think Tucker's using a form of the cold-blooded style, combined with intellectual dominance. A powerful combination. I observed that a common strength - and weakness - of the liberal left is their emotionality. On the one hand, it makes them more accessible to many people. On the other, it's easier to lure them into traps, like what Tucker and Shapiro do. As I like to say, every strength contains its weakness, and vice versa.
Fascinating video.
And fascinating analysis, too, Kellvo.
Great observations there, especially liked:
- Tucker's judge role: indeed, he is looking like the judge, while she is looking like the girl who has to prove her theories to him
- Cold-blooded style: yes, it's a peculiar style of cold-blooded, he sometimes also makes friendly overture by complimenting the guests -in this case "God bless you for tipping"-, some of whom fall for the friendly frame, but then Tucker reverts straight back into full attack mode, which stuns the guests. Manipulative, but effective (called this "olive branch trap")
- Intellectual dominance: 100%. He carries himself as the ultimate authority and browbeats his guests from a position of righteousness
- Liberals' emotionality: exceptions always apply of course but, on average, this is true. They often react with that "OMG, how can you say THAT", and look overly emotional. They are also easy preys of "you're not a good person" types of judge frames. I think this might be in part because many liberals don't understand/accept their dark side, and they have to deny it to themselves first and foremost
don't understand/accept their dark side
This is key, when you do, hardly it can be used against you so easily
A little off topic, yet related in a way: In highschool one of the most popular boys shit his pants in the bathroom, yet he decided to told the history as it was the most funny and normal thing to happen.
I would not go as far as to say he made shitting in your pants popular or cool, but he handle the situation so well by holding frame and looking non-embarrased that he did not take a status hit at all.
And I was paying attention of how he dominated the frame back them, probably I just did not knew the technical name "frame" as I now do 🙂
Quote from Stef on September 30, 2020, 10:43 amThis is key, when you do, hardly it can be used against you so easilyA little off topic, yet related in a way: In highschool one of the most popular boys shit his pants in the bathroom, yet he decided to told the history as it was the most funny and normal thing to happen.
I would not go as far as to say he made shitting in your pants popular or cool, but he handle the situation so well by holding frame and looking non-embarrased that he did not take a status hit at all.
And I was paying attention of how he dominated the frame back them, probably I just did not knew the technical name "frame" as I now do ?
Yeah, it's key indeed.
Even the lady there, she got tied up in a knot because she was defending against the obvious human tendency of wanting to hoard resources rather than sharing. But since she was denying that to herself, she was clutching at all sorts of unlikely straws.
If she had just said something like:
look, we all have a drive to hoard and keep for ourselves. I do too. And that's exactly why we need a government to step in and make us share with one another a bit more
How much more powerful of an argument, no?
Soiling pants
LOL, that's a damn story mate, wish I had seen him do that.
A friend of mine once also had something similar.
We were driving back to his place and he was trying to hold it. I was telling him "just stop mate, do it on the side of the street". But he wanted to reach home... Which he did.
When he came back to the car I was happy for him and told him it must have felt great to finally let go.
He turned around, looked at me for a couple of seconds, and then said:
Sballo' (my former nickname)... I didn't make it
LOL, I'll never forget that, and I always respected him so much more for his honesty when a lie would have gone totally undetected.
Liberals' emotionality: exceptions always apply of course but, on average, this is true. They often react with that "OMG, how can you say THAT", and look overly emotional. They are also easy preys of "you're not a good person" types of judge frames. I think this might be in part because many liberals don't understand/accept their dark side, and they have to deny it to themselves first and foremost
You hit it on the head, Lucio.
Watching content from different sides, I observed that in general, Liberals seem to want to be good people first and have the world adapt to that, while conservatives seem to want to adapt to the world first and sometimes be as good as possible within that. Both have strengths, both can be prosocial and selfish, but I think the liberal philosophy is so focused on feeling and doing good that it does sometimes forget that a bit of darkness is necessary too.