4 ms·

This is why "divide and conquer" is such an effective, commonplace strategy for an aspiring powermonger. Take two groups that are different but not in a remarke

by chipsy 12y ago

This is why "divide and conquer" is such an effective, commonplace strategy for an aspiring powermonger. Take two groups that are different but not in a remarked upon fashion. Invent a reason for the side that is not you to be a "them." Then organize your own side as an "us" combating the perceived injustice. Now you have an instant follower group at your command, ready to saddle up and commit heinous crimes for you. Explains all sorts of conflicts - ethnic, religious, ideological, nationalistic... Now every time I see people who organize an "us", I start looking for the "them" to appear. And then I write off the leader as someone up to no good.

Natsu 12y ago
No, they are the only people like that. They are the real bad guys here. You must just be a closet one of them! You know we can't trust anyone on their side. Ever!
philwelch 12y ago
Don't forget that you can play both sides against the middle either. Identity politics is a common diversion for a reason.
personlurking 12y ago
And what happens to those who are neither an "us" nor a "them"? They become a "me"? I prefer being a "me" but that also takes one down the path of possibly not believing in much and, following that logic, of becoming a cynic of all "us vs them" paradigms. We can also look at the digital world and the "together, alone" concept. With globalization and pop culture, the internet and fewer and fewer entities in charge of our food/entertainment/etc, we become a "me similar to an us". Edit: I took out an aside/anecdote.
- jiggy2011 12y ago
  You don't always have the option of not picking a group, see "you're with us or against us". Each group will demand that you identify with them or treat you as a member of the other group.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - teddyh 12y ago
    I’m reminded of Philip K. Dick’s The Chromium Fence (1955): ’I’m not!’ Walsh shouted futilely. ‘I’m not a Purist and I’m not a Naturalist! You hear me?’ Nobody heard him.
alexqgb 12y ago
That's not how divide and conquer works. Divide and conquer works by turning two groups against one another and not joining the fight. Instead, you wait for them do the most resource intensive damage first, then swoop in and conquer both once they've made each other sufficiently weak.

by chipsy 12y ago

Natsu 12y ago

No, they are the only people like that. They are the real bad guys here. You must just be a closet one of them! You know we can't trust anyone on their side. Ever!

philwelch 12y ago

Don't forget that you can play both sides against the middle either. Identity politics is a common diversion for a reason.

personlurking 12y ago

And what happens to those who are neither an "us" nor a "them"? They become a "me"? I prefer being a "me" but that also takes one down the path of possibly not believing in much and, following that logic, of becoming a cynic of all "us vs them" paradigms. We can also look at the digital world and the "together, alone" concept. With globalization and pop culture, the internet and fewer and fewer entities in charge of our food/entertainment/etc, we become a "me similar to an us". Edit: I took out an aside/anecdote.

jiggy2011 12y ago
You don't always have the option of not picking a group, see "you're with us or against us". Each group will demand that you identify with them or treat you as a member of the other group.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- teddyh 12y ago
  I’m reminded of Philip K. Dick’s The Chromium Fence (1955): ’I’m not!’ Walsh shouted futilely. ‘I’m not a Purist and I’m not a Naturalist! You hear me?’ Nobody heard him.

alexqgb 12y ago

That's not how divide and conquer works. Divide and conquer works by turning two groups against one another and not joining the fight. Instead, you wait for them do the most resource intensive damage first, then swoop in and conquer both once they've made each other sufficiently weak.