4 ms·

A common narcissistic tactic to manipulate a victim is to provide what is needed, allow that support to become relied upon if not essential, and then all suppor

A common narcissistic tactic to manipulate a victim is to provide what is needed, allow that support to become relied upon if not essential, and then all support is discontinued without warning. Maybe Musk is applying variation on a theme, maybe he's just honest to goodness unreliable and irresponsible for getting involved. Maybe Musk isn't a narcissist. Maybe he's also a sociopath, though sociopaths have no conscience and are prone to yelling a lot, they are also irresponsible and unreliable, mostly due to incompetence. Could Musk be incompetent? Though difficult to believe, it would explain some things.

jstarfish 4y ago
It's only Narcissistic when the victim gives up something up in the process of becoming your dependent-- like a spouse forgoing a career to raise your children, and then you threaten them with a divorce that will leave them destitute and unable to provide for themselves. So they stay trapped in an exploitative arrangement. What you're describing is the opposite-- a very entitled (and I daresay Narcissistic) interpretation of charity. If you give a desperate man a dollar, you don't owe him the rest of your wallet.
- Maursault 4y ago
  > It's only Narcissistic when the victim gives up something up in the process of becoming your dependent Narcissism has many facets and takes many forms. It is not only narcissistic under those circumstances because it is also narcissistic when the victim is berated and scrutinized in order to make them more pliant to manipulation. This is counter-example strictly proving your rigid definition incorrect. > a very entitled (and I daresay Narcissistic) interpretation of charity. This is ad hominem fallacy. What I described is not charity, it is intentionally creating reliance in order to cause instability when support is removed, and it is common enough to have its own idiom: pulling the rug out from under them, meaning to suddenly take away important support. > If you give a desperate man a dollar, you don't owe him the rest of your wallet. This is the fallacy of weak analogy. Yet similarly if one gives someone $200/month for years, then a common law arrangement develops, and one then becomes responsible for continuing to provide that monthly support. If without justification that support is intentionally and permanently ended, one is guilty of willful desertion and/or criminal abandonment. The victim is not entitled to the rest of one's capital, only continued support upon which they have become reliant due to one's free actions.
  - jstarfish 4y ago
    > It is not only narcissistic under those circumstances because it is also narcissistic when the victim is berated and scrutinized in order to make them more pliant to manipulation. Shaming Musk for not doing something he never agreed to do, to the detriment of his company, is itself manipulative and parasitic logic. All the same, fuck Amazon for offering a limited-use free tier. After a few months of free EC2, we apparently have a common-law obligation under which they have to keep giving me free service forever? That is not how charity works. You're redefining the terms of an informal arrangement in a way that most benefits you at someone else's expense-- literally Narcissistic behavior.
    - Maursault 4y ago
      > Shaming Musk for not doing something he never agreed to do, to the detriment of his company, is itself manipulative and parasitic logic. This is a straw man argument, as that was not my argument, and I was not shaming Musk. I was merely speculating: >> Maybe Musk is applying variation on a theme, maybe he's just honest to goodness unreliable and irresponsible for getting involved. Maybe Musk isn't a narcissist. Maybe he's also a sociopath... "Maybe" is salient here, meaning "there is the mere possibility that..." > All the same, fuck Amazon for offering a limited-use free tier. After a few months of free EC2, we apparently have a common-law obligation under which they have to keep giving me free service forever? Yet more straw man argument. How does Amazon enter into this? > That is not how charity works. Now your straw man has taken over. You introduced and claim this is charity, but I was describing something else entirely. > You're redefining the terms of an informal arrangement in a way that most benefits you at someone else's expense-- literally Narcissistic behavior. Still more straw man fallacy punctuated by ad hominem attack. If you can't comprehend and speak to my words, but only attack me, then your argument is fallacious and not worthy of being entertained other than to call it what it is, straw man arguments and personal insults.
more_corn 4y ago
I’m sure it has nothing to do with Ukraine embarrassing Elon by calling him out for a stupid ideas this week. For anyone who missed it, he posted some stupid tweet about ending the war by capitulating to russia’s demands and they told him to fuck off. Curious timing if you ask me.
- Maursault 4y ago
  Good point. Narcissists are terrified of criticism and will react aggressively, taking great pains to devalue or invalidate its source, and that may explain what happened here.

jstarfish 4y ago

It's only Narcissistic when the victim gives up something up in the process of becoming your dependent-- like a spouse forgoing a career to raise your children, and then you threaten them with a divorce that will leave them destitute and unable to provide for themselves. So they stay trapped in an exploitative arrangement. What you're describing is the opposite-- a very entitled (and I daresay Narcissistic) interpretation of charity. If you give a desperate man a dollar, you don't owe him the rest of your wallet.

Maursault 4y ago
> It's only Narcissistic when the victim gives up something up in the process of becoming your dependent Narcissism has many facets and takes many forms. It is not only narcissistic under those circumstances because it is also narcissistic when the victim is berated and scrutinized in order to make them more pliant to manipulation. This is counter-example strictly proving your rigid definition incorrect. > a very entitled (and I daresay Narcissistic) interpretation of charity. This is ad hominem fallacy. What I described is not charity, it is intentionally creating reliance in order to cause instability when support is removed, and it is common enough to have its own idiom: pulling the rug out from under them, meaning to suddenly take away important support. > If you give a desperate man a dollar, you don't owe him the rest of your wallet. This is the fallacy of weak analogy. Yet similarly if one gives someone $200/month for years, then a common law arrangement develops, and one then becomes responsible for continuing to provide that monthly support. If without justification that support is intentionally and permanently ended, one is guilty of willful desertion and/or criminal abandonment. The victim is not entitled to the rest of one's capital, only continued support upon which they have become reliant due to one's free actions.
- jstarfish 4y ago
  > It is not only narcissistic under those circumstances because it is also narcissistic when the victim is berated and scrutinized in order to make them more pliant to manipulation. Shaming Musk for not doing something he never agreed to do, to the detriment of his company, is itself manipulative and parasitic logic. All the same, fuck Amazon for offering a limited-use free tier. After a few months of free EC2, we apparently have a common-law obligation under which they have to keep giving me free service forever? That is not how charity works. You're redefining the terms of an informal arrangement in a way that most benefits you at someone else's expense-- literally Narcissistic behavior.
  - Maursault 4y ago
    > Shaming Musk for not doing something he never agreed to do, to the detriment of his company, is itself manipulative and parasitic logic. This is a straw man argument, as that was not my argument, and I was not shaming Musk. I was merely speculating: >> Maybe Musk is applying variation on a theme, maybe he's just honest to goodness unreliable and irresponsible for getting involved. Maybe Musk isn't a narcissist. Maybe he's also a sociopath... "Maybe" is salient here, meaning "there is the mere possibility that..." > All the same, fuck Amazon for offering a limited-use free tier. After a few months of free EC2, we apparently have a common-law obligation under which they have to keep giving me free service forever? Yet more straw man argument. How does Amazon enter into this? > That is not how charity works. Now your straw man has taken over. You introduced and claim this is charity, but I was describing something else entirely. > You're redefining the terms of an informal arrangement in a way that most benefits you at someone else's expense-- literally Narcissistic behavior. Still more straw man fallacy punctuated by ad hominem attack. If you can't comprehend and speak to my words, but only attack me, then your argument is fallacious and not worthy of being entertained other than to call it what it is, straw man arguments and personal insults.

more_corn 4y ago

I’m sure it has nothing to do with Ukraine embarrassing Elon by calling him out for a stupid ideas this week. For anyone who missed it, he posted some stupid tweet about ending the war by capitulating to russia’s demands and they told him to fuck off. Curious timing if you ask me.

Maursault 4y ago
Good point. Narcissists are terrified of criticism and will react aggressively, taking great pains to devalue or invalidate its source, and that may explain what happened here.