Skip to main content

Influence Tactics Analysis Results

43
Influence Tactics Score
out of 100
73% confidence
Moderate manipulation indicators. Some persuasion patterns present.
Optimized for English content.
Analyzed Content
X (Twitter)

Inez Stepman ⚪️🔴⚪️ on X

Doing these raids is more dangerous for ICE agents. It’s more dangerous for the illegal aliens being apprehended. And now, it’s more dangerous for idiotic leftist protestors who believe bullshit from moronic “training” groups about how ICE doesn’t have authority yadda yadda

Posted by Inez Stepman ⚪️🔴⚪️
View original →

Analysis Factors

Confidence
False Dilemmas 3/5
Implies binary of safe raids without protesters vs. danger from them, overlooking enforcement alternatives or protest grievances.
Us vs. Them Dynamic 4/5
Sharp 'us vs. them' with 'idiotic leftist protestors' vs. ICE agents/aliens, dismissing left as believing 'bullshit'.
Simplistic Narratives 4/5
Frames raids/protests as good (enforcement) vs. evil (leftist interference via 'training' groups), ignoring complexities.
Timing Coincidence 1/5
Directly responds to ongoing Jan 2026 ICE raids/protests in Minneapolis/LA after Renee Good shooting, with posts clustering naturally around events; no suspicious ties to distract from Iran/Trump news or prime future events.
Historical Parallels 2/5
Echoes past ICE defenses against 'smears' (e.g., 2025 DHS on assaults up 400%), but superficial to Obama-era raids or Trump media blitzes; no propaganda playbook copies.
Financial/Political Gain 3/5
Supports Trump-era deportation narrative against sanctuary leftists, aligning with author's conservative affiliations (IWF, Claremont); bolsters Republican immigration stance without named company/political payoffs.
Bandwagon Effect 2/5
No claims that 'everyone agrees' on raid dangers or protester idiocy; isolated opinion without momentum appeals.
Rapid Behavior Shifts 2/5
Amid post-shooting protest surge, offers critique without urgency; high X engagement split pro/anti-ICE, no manufactured trends or conversion pressure.
Phrase Repetition 3/5
Shares framing with conservatives (e.g., JD Vance on sanctuary chaos) amid Jan 10-13 posts, suggesting aligned talking points; not verbatim across diverse sources.
Logical Fallacies 4/5
Ad hominem attacks ('idiotic', 'moronic') undermine claims; assumes 'training' directly endangers without causal proof.
Authority Overload 1/5
No cited experts, officials, or authorities; pure opinion without endorsements.
Cherry-Picked Data 2/5
Asserts protester interference causes danger without balanced raid/protest stats or examples.
Framing Techniques 4/5
Biased terms like 'illegal aliens', 'idiotic leftist protestors', 'bullshit'/'moronic' load narrative pro-ICE, anti-left.
Suppression of Dissent 2/5
Mildly dismisses protesters/'training' groups as 'idiotic'/'moronic', but no broad critic labeling.
Context Omission 4/5
Omits raid contexts like Renee Good shooting, protester claims of overreach, sanctuary policies' role, or ICE tactics sparking clashes.
Novelty Overuse 2/5
No claims of unprecedented or shocking events; repeats standard critique of protests interfering with routine enforcement without novelty hype.
Emotional Repetition 2/5
Mild repetition of 'more dangerous' for agents, aliens, and protesters, but lacks intense looping of fear/outrage triggers.
Manufactured Outrage 4/5
Outrage targets 'bullshit from moronic “training” groups' and protesters believing ICE lacks authority, presented as disconnected from facts amid real raid contexts like shootings.
Urgent Action Demands 1/5
No demands for immediate action, reader consideration, or pressure; merely states observations about raid dangers without calls to do anything.
Emotional Triggers 4/5
Uses derogatory language like 'idiotic leftist protestors' and 'moronic “training” groups' to stoke outrage against protesters, framing their actions as foolish and dangerous while portraying ICE raids sympathetically.

Identified Techniques

Loaded Language Appeal to fear-prejudice Name Calling, Labeling Straw Man Reductio ad hitlerum

What to Watch For

Notice the emotional language used - what concrete facts support these claims?
This messaging appears coordinated. Look for independent sources with different framing.
This content frames an 'us vs. them' narrative. Consider perspectives from 'the other side'.
Key context may be missing. What questions does this content NOT answer?

This content shows some manipulation indicators. Consider the source and verify key claims.

Was this analysis helpful?
Share this analysis
Share on X Facebook LinkedIn
Analyze Something Else