3 ms·

This "weak man," tactic is taught in undergrad, the idea is to destabilize an opposing view to neutralize the person holding it. The emphasis is on "neutralize,

This "weak man," tactic is taught in undergrad, the idea is to destabilize an opposing view to neutralize the person holding it. The emphasis is on "neutralize," because the underlying strategy is based on the premise that there is no truth, only power, and for an opponent to be neutral, or do nothing, means there is no resistance to your agenda. When "everything is political," it is sufficient to isolate an opponent from a conversation because in that view, all power comes from attention and approval of others, because they have been trained to be psychologically actuated by shame. It's why, "not a good look," has become a standard put down, even among some men. This idea of litigating for power is why many people don't like lawyers, and when half the middle class is educated to act like the seediest of prosecutors, you get that thing that's wrong with someone you just can't put your finger on. I have some actual friends like this, and we find a way, but part of why there is so much hostility in the culture is because one side never thought they would need a new bare-metal up critical framework to conceive of how awful we've educated some people to become. One of the SSC rules was "be charitable," which is the value that the weak-man style of argument throws out. It's basically being uncharitable. So glad to see Alexander articles on HN lately.

leetcrew 6y ago
a couple random responses. I don't think I hear "not a good look" the same way you do. in particular, I don't hear it as a putdown, more of a cynical comment that expresses something like "I don't necessarily oppose what you are saying/doing, but I hope for your sake that other people don't notice". > This "weak man," tactic is taught in undergrad, the idea is to destabilize an opposing view to neutralize the person holding it. The emphasis is on "neutralize," because the underlying strategy is based on the premise that there is no truth, only power, and for an opponent to be neutral, or do nothing, means there is no resistance to your agenda. I'm having trouble fitting this in with what I currently see in the world. it doesn't seem like either "side" would be content with my neutrality/silence. they seem to want nothing less than full and vocal alignment on every issue.
- DangitBobby 6y ago
  In my experience, "not a good look" is definitely supposed to be a bitter indictment if whatever it is you are apparently doing.
Jtsummers 6y ago
I find your comment somewhat amusing in the context of this discussion. Was it intentional? > This "weak man," tactic is taught in undergrad, the idea is to destabilize an opposing view to neutralize the person holding it. [emphasis added] Where is this taught? > when half the middle class is educated to act like the seediest of prosecutors [emphasis added] So you're bringing in economic class now, and for some reason explicitly assigning this behavior to prosecutors.
- splistud 6y ago
  Regarding the second point, I read it as nothing but a fairly artful simile. Let me know if you need a pointer to where this is taught as well.
  - ahepp 6y ago
    I'm sure we all use this rhetorical strategy often. I know I do. But I also think it's fair to call it out, because the implications of half the middle class feeling this way are very different from say, half of left-twitter.
    - Jtsummers 6y ago
      To be fair to OP, I wasn't meaning to call them out (in the sense of shaming or other effects). I legitimately found it amusing that they used, or appeared to use, rhetorical methods like the one in the article. But look at half (or more by the time I click 'reply') the comments here. They're discussing whether or not there is a War on the War on Christmas, they fell into the same rhetorical trap the article itself is discussing. This is great entertainment and a wonderful way to clear my mind at the end of work on a slow Friday.
- defen 6y ago
  It's not explicitly taught, it's Girardian mimetic desire to destroy anyone with -ist or -phobic thought, as those sorts of people are who are preventing us from creating a utopia.

leetcrew 6y ago

a couple random responses. I don't think I hear "not a good look" the same way you do. in particular, I don't hear it as a putdown, more of a cynical comment that expresses something like "I don't necessarily oppose what you are saying/doing, but I hope for your sake that other people don't notice". > This "weak man," tactic is taught in undergrad, the idea is to destabilize an opposing view to neutralize the person holding it. The emphasis is on "neutralize," because the underlying strategy is based on the premise that there is no truth, only power, and for an opponent to be neutral, or do nothing, means there is no resistance to your agenda. I'm having trouble fitting this in with what I currently see in the world. it doesn't seem like either "side" would be content with my neutrality/silence. they seem to want nothing less than full and vocal alignment on every issue.

DangitBobby 6y ago
In my experience, "not a good look" is definitely supposed to be a bitter indictment if whatever it is you are apparently doing.

Jtsummers 6y ago

I find your comment somewhat amusing in the context of this discussion. Was it intentional? > This "weak man," tactic is taught in undergrad, the idea is to destabilize an opposing view to neutralize the person holding it. [emphasis added] Where is this taught? > when half the middle class is educated to act like the seediest of prosecutors [emphasis added] So you're bringing in economic class now, and for some reason explicitly assigning this behavior to prosecutors.

splistud 6y ago
Regarding the second point, I read it as nothing but a fairly artful simile. Let me know if you need a pointer to where this is taught as well.
- ahepp 6y ago
  I'm sure we all use this rhetorical strategy often. I know I do. But I also think it's fair to call it out, because the implications of half the middle class feeling this way are very different from say, half of left-twitter.
  - Jtsummers 6y ago
    To be fair to OP, I wasn't meaning to call them out (in the sense of shaming or other effects). I legitimately found it amusing that they used, or appeared to use, rhetorical methods like the one in the article. But look at half (or more by the time I click 'reply') the comments here. They're discussing whether or not there is a War on the War on Christmas, they fell into the same rhetorical trap the article itself is discussing. This is great entertainment and a wonderful way to clear my mind at the end of work on a slow Friday.
defen 6y ago
It's not explicitly taught, it's Girardian mimetic desire to destroy anyone with -ist or -phobic thought, as those sorts of people are who are preventing us from creating a utopia.