Mary Trump shared her theories after a series of incidents involving her uncle and female journalists
In the most recent incident Thursday, the president lashed out at a journalist who asked him about the D.C shooting suspect, asking if she was a “stupid person”.
Just one day before, Mary Trump had addressed her uncle’s previous run-ins with female reporters on her show, Mary Trump Live.
“His misogynistic attacks against reporters in particular are increasing and that means a couple of things,” she said. “It means that he’s increasingly comfortable lodging such attacks,” she continued, before reeling off a list of targeted groups. “There’s no hiding it anymore.”
The president’s niece also theorised that the sharp rebukes he delivers when questioned could be a sign that the pressure is getting to him in his second term.
“Mary Trump is a stone-old loser who doesn’t have a clue about anything,” White House Communications Director Steven Cheung said.
When they include quotes it makes it so much harder to remind myself it’s not satire.
Of course they’d have something abrasive like that ready for her. She’s been consistently speaking out against her uncle and his mental state for almost a decade.
Mary Trump is a psycholgist who wrote & warned about DT extensively ever since his 1st presidency. She predicted Jan 6: “He won’t go willingly.”
She might be milking it (a little), but she is competent, with a unique insight, and ever since that PBS interview in 2016 (or '17) I respect her.
I can’t fault her using it in any way to profit. She’s given us warning, we’re not listening, might as well ride this to the end and make some money doing it. While still warning us of what’s pretty damn obvious now.
The whole world was collectively giving you warnings for fascism for decades bud. You were so smug in being untouchable, some guy was bound to take it to the next level.
This pity patty show of remorse just because trump got elected still shows you guys will never learn the lesson.
But hey, you do you.
Yeah, a_nomy_mousse.
Why didnt you listen to the warnings and prevent this?! You smug bastard!
Very cool Vlad, why are you acting like such a Russian troll. Or are you an old sundowning boomer
Trump is the LEADER of the Christian Values Family Party! WHY would he Feel Comfortable spouting such ANTI CHRISTIAN Rhetoric? That DOESNT make Sense!
So he’s being an asshole because he’s an asshole
The only dumb thing I see now is how dumb America has generally become to normalize all this stupidity.
He’s an idiot president leading a nation of idiots.
Careful- tell liberals on Lenny they’re partly to blame for MAGA and they start outing themselves as pissy little cowards REAL fuckin’ fast.
Other countries are willingly going along with this. Stupidity does not stop at US borders.
I’m not a fan of her using the Streisand Effect to explain this. The wealthy suppress big stories all the time - like payments made to sex workers for instance. The Streisand Effect is really just survivorship bias illuminating the stories they try but fail to suppress.
It’s a misuse of the term. The Streisand Effect is when the rich or powerful try to supress something that no one knew about, calling greater attention to it.
The term was coined when Barbara Streisand tried to go after a guy for taking pictures of her home as part of a large aerial coastal photography project.
No one knew where her house was until she went after the guy, who also didn’t know. It blew up massively, and now anyone can see Barbara Streisand’s old house.
Do you think she’s the only wealthy person to go after a photographer for taking photos of her house? Or are they usually successful when they do?
The point of the Streisand Effect is the attempted suppression backfiring. The attempted suppression draws more attention than otherwise would have happened.
I think you’re missing that in your understanding.
Sure, as long as it’s understood to be a subset of the survivorship bias.
You’re still missing the point. The Streisand Effect describes a specific chain of events.
A rich or powerful person sees something that literally no one else has noticed, attempts to supress it, and by making the attempt, calls vastly greater attention to the item they were trying to suppress.
There’s no survivorship bias to it, because if any of those events are missing, then it’s not the Streisand Effect. It’s just attempted, or successful, suppression.
And again I say that the author of the linked article, also has a misunderstanding of the Streisand Effect.
I would love to see some scientific data or analysis of this. Until then, it’s an internet-described phenomenon and though it appears to make sense, can only be taken so seriously.
I don’t get why you need science for this, it’s a linguistic thing. It’s just the name for a particular situation, not a statement that certain things can be predicted from other things.
- Thing happens that isn’t widely reported.
- The person responsible fears word getting out and chooses to make attempts at suppressing awareness of the Thing.
- Suppression attempts get reported on, and news about the whole situation - original Thing and also Suppression - get more widely reported on.
This whole thing is a chain of events that could happen, and, if it does, then this is called the Streisand Effect.
If any part of it doesn’t happen - if the person doesn’t fear the situation, or if they doesn’t make suppression attempts, or if the the suppression attempts actually work and the story dies, or if the suppression attempts don’t work but still no one much cares - then it’s just not the Streisand Effect.
Terming it an “effect” does seem to imply that it’s stating a meaningful prediction, that there is a serious liklihood of things progressing this way based on initial choices.
Think of it as kind of like the weather. There are multiple competing and cooperating underlying factors that combine to some actual weather result. One of those effects, left to its own devices, causes rain, but the existence of that effect doesn’t mean every scenario involving that factor will lead to rain, since other things could interfere.
Reddit page where people discuss this exact conversation.
Edit: I realize I basically start by saying the Streisand Effect shouldn’t primarily be thought of as a causative thing, and then later compare it to factors that affect the weather, themselves causative things.
The Streisand Effect is, basically: what happens when you try to suppress something, should news of that suppression lead to drawing much greater attention to the original thing than would otherwise have occured. “Congratulations, you played yourself.” It’s not prescriptive - attempts to suppress don’t inherently lead to the blowup. You could also think of it as the “Overcompensation Effect”, what happens when attempts at correction cause a new problem - though the Streisand Effect is very specifically not about the news of the cover up as an end, but as a means to the original story news blowing up.
Oftentimes, they are successful. There are certainly times when a wealthy person who tries this ends up failing in their attempt, but it doesn’t stand out much because there’s a certain level of rich-people-assholey that’s almost expected, where people will disapprove, but in an unsurprised way.
Streisand’s case was absurd to the highest degree, which was why it blew up. The photo wasn’t even of her house, but an aerial shot of the coast which also captured many other houses. Her house was just incidentally in the image, and even if you zoom in close enough to try see details of the house, the resolution is so low that I can’t fathom anyone genuinely believing it was an invasion of privacy.
What’s more, the purpose of the aerial photos was to document coastal erosion as research for policy making. Especially back in the early 2000s, I’d bet that the majority of photographers sued under invasion of privacy laws were paparazzi, and this is completely different circumstances. People found Streisand’s response offensive because she was obstructing a project that was for the public good. It’s likely that there were other people whose homes were included in photographs from this project who wouldn’t be keen on that prospect, but sucked it up because it’s not like they were actively trying to photograph people’s houses, and coastal erosion is a pretty big deal for people living on the coast.
Though I imagine most people would be unaware their homes were even captured. I remember that the photo in question had only been downloaded 6 times — two of those times were her attorneys.
Though actually I just learned that her beef was actually far more reasonable than I’d realised — unlike other homes that were labelled anonymously, with latitude and longitude coordinates, hers was labelled as belonging to her. Given the awfulness of paparazzi and stalkers, I actually think wanting her name off of it was reasonable. Since then, she’s made it clear that this was all she wanted, and one of the legal documents I just skimmed aligns with that. I can’t imagine why the photographer wouldn’t have just acquiesced to that request before it got all the way to court (by which point, he’d accrued $177k in legal fees). I wonder if perhaps the initial cease and desist sent to the photographer framed it more like a request to remove the photo entirely.
Why anyone would give “Mary trump” a platform obviously would only be to elevates ones on agenda
She writes and talks about Trump because she feels that the insight that she has on the fucked up dynamic of the Trump family is useful in understanding the mindset of one of the most powerful men in the world. People care about what she says, and thus give her a platform, because they agree that her analysis is useful and interesting.
In terms of her agenda, if I were her, saddled with the curse of that name and the toxic family that comes with it, I would feel it my duty to do everything I could to criticise Trump, especially given that her name means that her words would carry weight even if her perspective wasn’t especially interesting (I do find her work interesting — she doesn’t just coast off of the name, but also draws on her experience as someone with a PhD in psychology). Hell, even outside of that hypothetical, I already do consider it my duty to oppose Trump however I can; it’s just that that amounts to very little given that I’m a Brit with no political power). Trump is such a repugnant human that surely we don’t need to grasp for some nefarious underlying agenda to explain why she’d criticise him.
