6 ms·
People fall for it. It's horrid, but smart from a tactical perspective. I wonder if there are resources on creating divisions. It's a very interesting social s
by gbpz 6y ago
People fall for it. It's horrid, but smart from a tactical perspective.
I wonder if there are resources on creating divisions. It's a very interesting social science topic.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- disgruntledphd2 6y agoI guess so, but it's not really an interesting question because it's so easy. Humans are (somewhat) pre-disposed to form in-groups and out-groups, and clearly those people are worse than us. The only real difference between pre-internet and post-internet is that it's much, much easier for fringe ideas to spread (and often this is good, like gay rights were a fringe idea twenty years ago). However, we don't get only the good (for whatever your definition of good is) stuff, we also get people who particular in-groups don't like organising, and this sucks. But everyone's out-group is someone else's in-group, so unless you can solve humanity, you're not going to fix Facebook. To be fair though, I trace the divisions in American society mostly from the decline of the Fairness Doctrine, and all the downstream consequences of that (specific channels for particular worldviews leading to increased radicalisation).
- EVdotIO 6y agoRead up on rhetoric, hard sales tactics and CIA/KGB sabotage. Here's a fun little one from the OSS that's still used in 2020: (8) If possible, join or help organize a group for presenting employee problems to the management. See that the procedures adopted are as inconvenient as possible for the management, involving the presence of a large number of employees at each presentation, entailing more than one meeting for each grievance, bringing up problems which are largely imaginary, and so on. https://www.cia.gov/news-information/featured-story-archive/2012-featured-story-archive/CleanedUOSSSimpleSabotage_sm.pdf https://www.cia.gov/news-information/featured-story-archive/...