4 ms·

They have no power outside that which is given to them is the point. If random people want to cancel waffles, they are powerless to do so. It’s only when someo

by awb 4y ago

They have no power outside that which is given to them is the point. If random people want to cancel waffles, they are powerless to do so. It’s only when someone who actually has the power to cancel waffles decides to cancel them does it happen. The mob can only influence these powers that be.

RHSeeger 4y ago
Consider the case where millions of people are convinced, influenced by a swarm of people on twitter, that someone in your company should be fired. Those millions of people are an impactful portion of your customer base. You can either do what they want you to do or lose a lot of money; perhaps enough to impact the viability/health of your company. At that point, it's not unreasonable to back down and fire the person, regardless of your own opinion on the subject. Sure, you can stand up to it and keep them around; but is it reasonable to risk it? To risk the jobs of the other people are your company? An army isn't powerful because there's one powerful person at the top. An army is powerful because there are many people at the bottom, and they are organized to act as a single force.
- lapcat 4y ago
  > Consider the case where millions of people are convinced, influenced by a swarm of people on twitter, that someone in your company should be fired. Is this a real case though? It seems like only a counterfactual hypothetical. In most cases, millions of people are not going to feel as strongly about something as the minority of people tweeting. If the people tweeting about it even feel strongly; it's easy to tweet about something, but writing a tweet doesn't necessarily represent a powerful and lasting dedication to a cause. These incidents tend to be fleeting.
  - vinyl7 4y ago
    Is it real? Probably not, but that is how organization perceives it. An angry mob on twitter sure does make it look like you'd lose a lot a business by not capitulating, even though chances are 90% of those people probably never were customers in the first place. It doesn't have to be a real threat for it to be perceived as a real threat.
    - lapcat 4y ago
      > even though chances are 90% of those people probably never were customers in the first place. It doesn't have to be a real threat for it to be perceived as a real threat. Shouldn't we blame the people in power for having incompetently bad misperceptions about their own organizations?
Kamq 4y ago
> They have no power outside that which is given to them is the point. That's true for literally every human with power. If everyone* just stopped listening to the government, all government officials would immediately lose all of their power. Don't get me wrong, it's not simple to organize that. This would be a coordination problem that would be extremely difficult to pull off. But that doesn't change the fact that the power over other humans is still given by other humans. *everyone includes the military
dahauns 4y ago
>The mob can only influence these powers that be. Fully agree - except for the word "only". That's the argument. "Powers that be" are never absolute. Your own quote fully applies to them as well: >They have no power outside that which is given to them is the point. I mean, the Peelian Principles for example are based on this central notion.

by awb 4y ago

RHSeeger 4y ago

Consider the case where millions of people are convinced, influenced by a swarm of people on twitter, that someone in your company should be fired. Those millions of people are an impactful portion of your customer base. You can either do what they want you to do or lose a lot of money; perhaps enough to impact the viability/health of your company. At that point, it's not unreasonable to back down and fire the person, regardless of your own opinion on the subject. Sure, you can stand up to it and keep them around; but is it reasonable to risk it? To risk the jobs of the other people are your company? An army isn't powerful because there's one powerful person at the top. An army is powerful because there are many people at the bottom, and they are organized to act as a single force.

lapcat 4y ago
> Consider the case where millions of people are convinced, influenced by a swarm of people on twitter, that someone in your company should be fired. Is this a real case though? It seems like only a counterfactual hypothetical. In most cases, millions of people are not going to feel as strongly about something as the minority of people tweeting. If the people tweeting about it even feel strongly; it's easy to tweet about something, but writing a tweet doesn't necessarily represent a powerful and lasting dedication to a cause. These incidents tend to be fleeting.
- vinyl7 4y ago
  Is it real? Probably not, but that is how organization perceives it. An angry mob on twitter sure does make it look like you'd lose a lot a business by not capitulating, even though chances are 90% of those people probably never were customers in the first place. It doesn't have to be a real threat for it to be perceived as a real threat.
  - lapcat 4y ago
    > even though chances are 90% of those people probably never were customers in the first place. It doesn't have to be a real threat for it to be perceived as a real threat. Shouldn't we blame the people in power for having incompetently bad misperceptions about their own organizations?

Kamq 4y ago

> They have no power outside that which is given to them is the point. That's true for literally every human with power. If everyone* just stopped listening to the government, all government officials would immediately lose all of their power. Don't get me wrong, it's not simple to organize that. This would be a coordination problem that would be extremely difficult to pull off. But that doesn't change the fact that the power over other humans is still given by other humans. *everyone includes the military

dahauns 4y ago

>The mob can only influence these powers that be. Fully agree - except for the word "only". That's the argument. "Powers that be" are never absolute. Your own quote fully applies to them as well: >They have no power outside that which is given to them is the point. I mean, the Peelian Principles for example are based on this central notion.