I appreciate you taking the time to reply to my piece. I do find it odd, though, that you found my argument compelling until your saw that I was a Trump critic. How does that invalidate the salient points I made in the first part of the article that you said you found compelling? That does not follow any rules of logic I know.
By taking this position you completely strip the etymology from “viral.” Viral as a metaphor is rooted in viral as in viruses. Viruses replicate without any outside help. Successful word of mouth campaigns are not viral, they are successful. Viral does not mean large numbers of shares. It means the number of shares grow without any help.
Yes Molly. Scott Adams and Maher’s conversation was great. Adams went deeper into this and other related tactics by Trump.
One common feature of them all is the simplicity of the message. Whether attacking opponent’s strength or leveling some racist codeword scapegoating, the messages are short and to the point, making them…