TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME | A Social Media Evaluation

Insights from a Recent Showdown in the Digital Public Square

All comments cited in this article were publicly posted and are used here for the purpose of social commentary and analysis. This article does not intend to defame, misrepresent, or diminish the dignity of any individual. Its purpose is to invite reflection and encourage healthier public discourse.

What if we could actually measure the health of our conversations?

What if, instead of drowning in outrage or echo chambers, we had a way of stepping back and asking: Is what I’m saying—or what others are saying—rooted in truth, dignity, and fairness?

That’s what I set out to do in what turned into a heated social media exchange about a tragic deportation. I didn’t enter the thread to win or to be vindicated. I entered because I believed a grave injustice had been committed—and because I also believed we needed to talk about it honestly, with moral clarity and respect for human dignity on all sides.

So I did something unusual. I asked for an objective, non-partial evaluation of the conversation. I invited critique of my own words. I asked whether I was truly embodying the values I was calling others to uphold. I didn't want to be exempt from the analysis. I wanted to be included in it.

To pursue this, I engaged ChatGPT—a large language model developed by OpenAI—with the specific purpose of applying a consistent, observable framework for evaluating the rhetoric, tone, and moral reasoning within the conversation. I asked it to include my own contributions under the same scrutiny as anyone else’s. If we are going to talk about honesty, integrity, and moral judgment, we should all be willing to submit ourselves to a fair and even standard.

Because if we can’t evaluate ourselves, we can’t help heal the public square.

---

It started with a comment.

Steven Greydanus, a Catholic film critic and respected voice in Catholic media, posted a searing condemnation of a tragic deportation case involving Kilmar Abrego Garcia. Rightly drawing attention to the grave injustice and human suffering of a man wrongly deported to El Salvador, Steven labeled the event for what it was: evil. But then, like a spark near dry brush, the comment ignited.

What followed wasn’t simply debate. It was a revelation. Beneath the language of justice, many of the replies betrayed a deeper illness in our cultural bloodstream—one that, ironically, has less to do with Trump himself than with our capacity for reasoned, respectful, fact-based conversation.

As one participant in that thread (myself), I attempted to re-center the conversation with a principled response. I acknowledged the tragedy. I affirmed justice. But I also challenged the sweeping condemnations of the Trump administration that conflated an administrative error with systemic evil. I asked for evidence. I invited logic. I appealed to Catholic teaching.

The result? A cascade of vitriol. Insults. Sarcasm. Ad hominem attacks. Statements like: "Your orange god," "This is what this goddamn administration has done since day one," and "FUS would align with a sexual predator president." My call for clarity was met with caricature. My appeal to Catholic moral reasoning was dismissed as a fallacy.

This wasn’t just an unfortunate exchange. It’s emblematic of something larger—a cultural and intellectual posture I would call, carefully and non-clinically, Trump Delusion Syndrome (TDS).

---

What Is TDS?

Let’s be clear: disagreement with Trump is not delusional. Outrage over injustice is not delusional. Even believing Trump is dangerous is not delusional.

But TDS refers to a particular pattern of discourse that mirrors the psychological structure of delusion:

A fixed, emotionally charged belief held with great conviction despite counter-evidence, often reinforced by tribal allegiance and resistant to reasoned dialogue.

To develop a more objective approach, ChatGPT and I worked together to create a framework that would measure how closely comments aligned with reasoned, respectful discourse—or deviated from it.

We identified five key markers:

1. Disproportionate Emotion – Outrage replaces reason.

2. Scapegoating / Symbolic Projection – Trump becomes a stand-in for all evil.

3. Resistance to Contrary Evidence – Evidence is ignored or dismissed.

4. Moral Absolutism / Dehumanization – Supporters are morally impugned.

5. Lack of Nuance or Complexity – Binary thinking flattens discussion.

Using this framework (here is my full, unedited dialogue with ChatGPT), we evaluated several comments from the thread—including my own. The goal wasn’t to assign blame, but to identify where any of us might fall short of respectful, truth-centered discourse.

---

Composite Evaluations (Scores out of 25)

A representative sample of participants and their overall tone and reasoning throughout the thread, with scores and evaluations exactly from ChatGPT model.

---

Evalyn – 24/25 (Extreme TDS Indicators)

“Your sadism and blame-shifting from your orange god is duly noted.”
“This is not an anomaly; it’s what this goddamn administration has done since day one.”

Evalyn’s responses were heavily emotionally charged, accusatory, and laced with dehumanizing rhetoric. There was no attempt to engage facts or nuance. Nearly every comment scored high across all five TDS categories.

---

Jenn – 19/25 (High TDS Indicators)

“It is proven fact... they don’t care about people. Why don’t you care?”
“FUS would align with a sexual predator president.”

Jenn’s comments repeatedly assumed malice as motive, framed disagreement as moral deficiency, and dismissed contrary positions as either ignorance or complicity. Though passionate, there was little engagement with the evidence requested, and significant projection of intent.

---

Rebecca – 17/25 (High TDS Indicators)

“Argument from authority is a fallacy, but I don't suppose a Trump defender cares about logic any more than you care about truth, justice, or rule of law.”

Her comments dismissed opposing arguments by impugning the moral character and intellectual integrity of others. Rather than engaging the content of the argument, she framed the opposing view as inherently untrustworthy.

---

David – 21/25 (Extreme TDS Indicators)

“Before God… I judge the actions of this administration to be anti-Christ… radical, chaotic, normless…”

David’s contribution, while theologically rooted and serious in tone, cast judgment in stark apocalyptic terms that offered no room for nuance or complexity. His assertion blurred the line between prophetic critique and moral annihilation of the opposing position.

---

Steven Greydanus – 15/25 (Moderate TDS Indicators)

“Your rudeness and rash judgment toward a good priest... is not acceptable... No True Scotsman fallacy.”
“Gregory, your reply is nonsensical on two accounts.”

While Steven attempted to maintain civility and offered substantive data elsewhere, his tone at times shifted toward personal accusation and dismissiveness. His concluding comment—asserting “nonsensical” reasoning and enforcing a link cap—veered away from dialogue toward rhetorical closure. He showed some resistance to charitable interpretation of motives and prematurely dismissed moral counter-arguments.

---

Gregory Schlueter – Average Score: 8/25 (Low TDS Indicators)

“This situation is tragic, no question… But let’s not turn rare failures into sweeping condemnations. If we want justice, we need clarity, not caricature.”
“Please find me any solid theologian, bishop or priest who, all things considered, before God, believes the statement: ‘This is their goal and they don’t care about people.’”

Gregory’s tone was at times pointed, particularly in calling out ad hominem or illogical responses, but his overall posture consistently emphasized logic, respect, moral clarity, and sourced Catholic teaching. He invited critique of his own stance, welcomed contrary evidence, and acknowledged areas where he could have expressed himself more charitably.

---

Why This Matters

This isn’t ultimately about Trump. It’s about how we talk about important things.

When even educated Catholics resort to mockery, accusations, and tribal sloganeering, something has gone deeply wrong. It signals that our moral compass is being overwhelmed by media-induced panic, ideological rigidity, and a loss of trust in reason itself.

It signals that we’ve stopped seeing each other as human beings worthy of thoughtful response.

---

A Better Way Forward

Catholicism calls us to more. It calls us to a radical commitment to truth and charity. To justice and mercy. To logic and love. To dialogue that actually seeks understanding.

So here is the invitation:

• Before you hit "reply," ask: Am I responding to a person, or to a projection of who I think they are?

• Before you share that viral article, ask: Have I verified its claims? Am I open to counter-evidence?

• Before you write someone off, ask: Do I really know what they believe, or just what I’ve assumed?

This isn’t weakness. It’s strength. It’s what love looks like in the age of information warfare.

We don’t have to agree on every policy. But we must agree on this:

Every person has dignity. Every conversation deserves respect. Every claim demands evidence.

Let that be our shared starting point.

Because without it, we are no longer debating policies. We are sacrificing our humanity.

-----------------------
TrueFace “Reveal the Real”| Invitation to a Humanity-Changing Opportunity

This began like so many online interactions—one comment among many. Heated replies. Misunderstandings. Emotion crowding out reason. I didn’t step into it to win. I stepped in because I believed truth and dignity mattered—even in the chaos of a comment thread.

But somewhere along the way, something shifted.

I found myself not only defending a point, but questioning how I was defending it. Was I living the very principles I was calling others to uphold? Could I evaluate myself by a fair, consistent standard?

So I tried something. I asked for help evaluating my own tone, logic, and moral reasoning. I invited critique—not just of others, but of myself. And that’s when a deeper question surfaced:

What if every social media user had this capacity?

What if we could each see our digital interactions—not in the distorted mirror of likes or outrage—but in the light of truth, fairness, and human dignity? What if we had a way to reveal the real?

That’s what led to the vision of TrueFace | Reveal the Real.

This is more than a personal reflection. It’s the beginning of something bigger—something I believe the world desperately needs. TrueFace is a proposed platform or plug-in that evaluates online contributions—not to shame, but to elevate. Not to silence, but to dignify. It’s a way to illuminate how we show up online, to hold up a mirror that helps us become more honest, more thoughtful, more human.

I believe this moment—this difficult, painful exchange—paved the way for something epic. A turning point.

If you are someone with experience in platform design, decision-making, AI, or investment—and you’re moved by the possibility of making social media more worthy of the people on it—I invite you to reach out.

Let’s step into a more dignified humanity.

Let’s Reveal the Real.

---

Enter the Enchanting World of Pigletsville!

Our Present-Day Plight Wrapped in a Fairytale

“The things I believed most then, the things I believe most now, are the things called fairy tales.” - G.K. Chesterton

Enter the Enchanting World of Pigletsville!

Our Present-Day Plight Wrapped in a Fairytale

“The things I believed most then, the things I believe most now, are the things called fairy tales.” - G.K. Chesterton

September, 2021. Lying in the intensive care unit, I could barely move. Or breathe. An oppressive omen lingered over me, painting the sterile walls in shades of death. I was in a void. Devoid of family or friends. Various beeps and mechanical sounds taunted me, discordant notes adding to an ever-growing cacophony orchestrated by some malevolent maestro waving his macabre baton over the planet. Wearing a crown. Pretending to be on the throne.

I became aware of the battle. And lived to tell about it.

This may be a fairytale, but don’t make the mistake in thinking it is not real. It is very real. And consequential. In the shallows you will recognize present-day political personalities and circumstances; in the depths you will encounter our common aspiration for authentic belonging and becoming. Which happens on a battlefield. Involving formidable forces. Not simply for the likes of passing presidents, but transcending all ideologies. I invite you to go there.

“You were there. As was I. And I am now here. And will forever be.”
- Whisper of the Unseen