4 ms·
We need a name for this tactic. I see it from right-leaning folk all the time. 1. Alter the rules so the thing is under threat 2. Intervene to protect it from
by __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
We need a name for this tactic. I see it from right-leaning folk all the time.
1. Alter the rules so the thing is under threat
2. Intervene to protect it from the harm you initiated
3. Now you're encumbered by one fewer rule, and you're a known protector of the thing
Executive Heist? Tyrant's Gambit? The Ol' Feudal Switcheroo?
My local school district did it with school days just this year. On the books they're now "online learning days" but thanks to the largesse of the very people who took them away, we can have them still... as a gift.
- TheOtherHobbes 2y agoWhen the Mob does it, it's a protection racket. "Nice little monopoly you have there. Oops, look at that one over there, which burned down with no survivors. Be a shame if anything like that happened to you."
- nonameiguess 2y agoIt's mafia logic but honestly way more ingrained into large-brained mammal culture than that. "I'll protect you but the main thing I'm protecting you from is myself" is a tactic employed by everything from actual mafias to entirely legal police and military organizations to the dominant male chimp in a troop. It's easy to see from a detached view how stupid it is, but how do we combat something so fundamental to our animal drives that it predates the existence of our own species?
- __MatrixMan__ 2y agoI'm after something a bit more specific than that though. Threats feed into changes in the status quo in myriad ways and not all of them involve this kind of flip flop where you time the switching of sides such that you get to be seen as the one saving the day (nevermind that it's from yourself several years ago).