= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
OrphanWilde comments on Dark Arts: Defense in Reputational Warfare - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (69)
Which would have been a disadvantage thirty years ago.
While it isn't now?
No.
Thirty years ago, you had to be fairly skilled to use a perceived weakness to your advantage, using it to direct/anticipate and redirect. Today, using weakness as a weapon is a standard item in the average person's social toolkit, and the society we live in expects weakness to be catered to.
Rather using a "weakness" in the sense of belonging to an officially approved "victim group" is an advantage. Actually showing weakness in a fight will be exploited even more ruthlessly than before.
How do you "exploit" somebody in a reputational fight, pray tell?
You exploit the weakness by demanding more concessions. To use an example strait from today's headlines the Christakises' showing of weakness by apologizing was exploited by the BLM thugs putting pressure on her to resign.
What exactly changed in these last 30 years that made weaknesses function differently?
Society and technology. Somebody perceived as "punching down" in public is liable to be attacked en masse via social media, which makes it undesirable to do so.
This is not to say that this makes you invulnerable, but it provides a pretty strong disincentive for those who might be inclined to attack on that basis.