4 ms·

I've thought the guy is slimy scum for some time, but that article made something click. One consistent feature of Kalanick's tactics appears to be a proclivit

• geofft 10y ago
  In American culture, gaslighting is a valued leadership quality. You get things done by making people think you're in control of the situation. See, for instance, Mike Pence's behavior during the VP debate, saying with a straight face that certain things never happened that did happen (it's a very different experience watching it once you understand that gaslighting is a thing that exists), or Hillary Clinton talking approvingly of Abe Lincoln having a public and private position - duplicity is good leadership. If you want to get something done, and you have two constituencies that disagree about how to do it, go to each constituency and say that you agree with them. Anyone who thinks of calling you out on it is going to doubt their own recollection of events. I think it's good for our culture that people are starting to question that, but it will be a very long and difficult battle.
  • maxerickson 10y ago
    Is talking about an achievable political goal instead of whatever you think would be ideal really the same sort of thing as gaslighting?
    • geofft 10y ago
      No. But Pence was definitely not talking about achievable political goals. He was just flatly denying that certain things happened. Clinton wasn't gaslighting; she was just espousing the (correct, as far as I can tell) idea that in order to be a successful leader, you have to convince different sides that you believe different things, even if those sides are talking to each other to figure out what you believe. That seems at least a little bit gaslighty if you never admit your duplicity. (In Clinton's favor, the speech in question was effectively admitting the duplicity - and the backlash made it clear how bad an idea that is if you want to remain in positions of leadership.) I think it's certainly possible to tell everyone you meet, "In an ideal world, I'd support X, but for the following reasons I think only X' is achievable right now; these are the ways in which I'd be convinced that X is in fact achievable." And you could be effective doing that. But probably you'd not be as effective in the American value system as someone who says "No, I genuinely support X and will fight for X" to one person and "Of course I don't support X, that's unrealistic" to another.
      • tim333 10y ago
        >Clinton wasn't gaslighting; she was just espousing the (correct, as far as I can tell) idea that in order to be a successful leader, you have to convince different sides that you believe different things Not sure how well that worked for her. See "Poll: Just 12 percent of Dems see Clinton as 'honest and trustworthy'" and similar headlines. Plus losing to a pretty bad opponent.
        • geofft 10y ago
          Yeah, I agree. She doesn't quite have the temperament for what America wants from a leader: duplicity is hard for her and straight-up gaslighting even harder. She can't pull it off in a way that is convincing, and so people perceive her as untrustworthy. Meanwhile, her opponent is almost a parody of the stereotype of the politician who lies about everything to get votes, and people just assume he's playing 11-dimensional poker and his actual goal is whatever they want to think his actual goal is (and this includes both people who agree with him and people who disagree).
          • tim333 10y ago
            Personally I think being straightforward can work pretty well which I think Obama mostly was for example.