If you’re accused of something, admit to the weakest and least harmful version of that which is true (be specific, and deny as necessary), and say you’re aware of your problem and working on improving. This works regardless of whether there’s an audience or not, but works best if there is an audience.
I don’t think is necessarily good advice. Admitting that you’re aware of your problem and working on improving can be seen as a form of weakness. In some cases it may be better to categorically deny the accusation and immediately counterattack, for instance by accusing your attacker of having ulterior motives.
Thirty years ago, you had to be fairly skilled to use a perceived weakness to your advantage, using it to direct/anticipate and redirect. Today, using weakness as a weapon is a standard item in the average person’s social toolkit, and the society we live in expects weakness to be catered to.
Rather using a “weakness” in the sense of belonging to an officially approved “victim group” is an advantage. Actually showing weakness in a fight will be exploited even more ruthlessly than before.
You exploit the weakness by demanding more concessions. To use an example strait from today’s headlines the Christakises’ showing of weakness by apologizing was exploited by the BLM thugs putting pressure on her to resign.
Society and technology. Somebody perceived as “punching down” in public is liable to be attacked en masse via social media, which makes it undesirable to do so.
This is not to say that this makes you invulnerable, but it provides a pretty strong disincentive for those who might be inclined to attack on that basis.
I don’t think is necessarily good advice. Admitting that you’re aware of your problem and working on improving can be seen as a form of weakness. In some cases it may be better to categorically deny the accusation and immediately counterattack, for instance by accusing your attacker of having ulterior motives.
Which would have been a disadvantage thirty years ago.
While it isn’t now?
No.
Thirty years ago, you had to be fairly skilled to use a perceived weakness to your advantage, using it to direct/anticipate and redirect. Today, using weakness as a weapon is a standard item in the average person’s social toolkit, and the society we live in expects weakness to be catered to.
Rather using a “weakness” in the sense of belonging to an officially approved “victim group” is an advantage. Actually showing weakness in a fight will be exploited even more ruthlessly than before.
How do you “exploit” somebody in a reputational fight, pray tell?
You exploit the weakness by demanding more concessions. To use an example strait from today’s headlines the Christakises’ showing of weakness by apologizing was exploited by the BLM thugs putting pressure on her to resign.
What exactly changed in these last 30 years that made weaknesses function differently?
Society and technology. Somebody perceived as “punching down” in public is liable to be attacked en masse via social media, which makes it undesirable to do so.
This is not to say that this makes you invulnerable, but it provides a pretty strong disincentive for those who might be inclined to attack on that basis.