Wounded Gazelles

I really don't like them. And they almost always pull it off. Which makes me dislike them even more.

edited 9th Jan '11 10:45:20 PM by SandJosieph

♥♥II'GSJQGDvhhMKOmXunSrogZliLHGKVMhGVmNhBzGUPiXLYki'GRQhBITqQrrOIJKNWiXKO♥♥

I wish we had a genuinely effective means of detecting lies. (Polygraph doesn't really count.) Sure we can try probing manipulative pieces of shit like that with questions, but the more skillful among them can find a way around it. -.-

The main question is what is worse - falling for a lie or letting a genuine victim suffer because they could not prove their plight efficiently enough.

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

I used to pull off that gambit nearly constantly throughout Middle School and High School, but I think that was partially because I got a heavy dose of it during Elementary School, so I quickly picked up that useful tool. Doesn't work too well after that though.

"I didn't steal it; I'm borrowing it until I die."

"The main question is what is worse - falling for a lie or letting a genuine victim suffer because they could not prove their plight efficiently enough." - Beholderess

It's not that simple. Someone pretending to be a victim inevitably hurts the people they're falsely accusing... see false rape accusations, for example.

Oh, and Tsukubus, unless you were using the gambit exclusively against those who had used it themselves, saying it was done to you does NOT excuse it.

edited 10th Jan '11 4:40:52 AM by neoYTPism

Let's not forget also that when it does stop working it also becomes harder for real victims of the same mistreatment to get help.

The Boy Who Cried Wolf? What's worse is that it makes people unlikely to believe others with similar stories because "we've heard it all before, yadda yadda."

Good gravy, that's exactly what you said. Man, I wish we had a delete button.

edited 10th Jan '11 5:02:40 AM by BlackWolfe

But soft! What rock through yonder window breaks? It is a brick! And Juliet is out cold.

"Let's not forget also that when it does stop working it also becomes harder for real victims of the same mistreatment to get help." - Michael

Indeed. I'd say put surveillance cameras in schools, with this as one of the many reasons; if one student falsely incriminates another of something, and surveillance footage clears the one who was incriminated, then one should punish the user of the gambit as severely as you would punish what said student was falsely incriminating another of, if not worse. Sure, schools aren't the only place where the gambit is used, but if we were to give out real punishments for those who'd use it as kids, we could deter them from using it as they grow up.

EDIT: As for The Boy Who Cried Wolf scenarios, if it's a matter of the individual's use of the gambit leading to the individual not being believed when it really happens, then good. They deserve it.

edited 10th Jan '11 7:25:24 AM by neoYTPism

^ Nah, they'd simply learn to not use it when there are cameras around.

And Wounded Gazelle Gambit isn't the same as Crying Wolf. They're different in several important ways: Crying Wolf damages the credibility of the person who does it. Wounded Gazelle Gambits harm people who are innocent.

edited 10th Jan '11 6:23:56 AM by Madrugada

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

True, but I was referring to overlap between the two; if a person is caught using the gambit enough, and then really is hurt in some way, then they will end up being hurt without people believing them.

We can't rely on that though. We need a better way of enforcing it. Perhaps hidden cameras? That may be an ethical grey area, but if evidence from those particular cameras is used exclusively against those who use such manipulative tactics, then that means we're using evidence gained through deception only against deceivers. Wouldn't that be a better way of deterring them?

edited 10th Jan '11 7:30:02 AM by neoYTPism

But that's what I implied by falling for a lie. Sorry for not formulating it clearly enough, I did not intend to make it sound simple.

So the question is, what is worse - getting someone falsely accused or not believing a genuine accusation and allowing abuse to happen?

Personally, I do think that wrong accusation is worse, but I am not sure if I'm able to justify it.

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

Oh, hardly. I find the entire concept of "moral justification" to be slightly repugnant, and at the very least useless. And in all honesty, I don't even mind having been wounded gazelle'd in elementary school because it taught me a useful skill that helped me later in life.

edited 10th Jan '11 11:33:52 AM by Tsukubus

"I didn't steal it; I'm borrowing it until I die."

I'm very tempted to make a "Lion" sockpuppet and make a "They're so delicious " response to this.

edited 10th Jan '11 11:39:39 AM by Deboss

Fight smart, not fair.

"Oh, hardly. I find the entire concept of "moral justification" to be slightly repugnant, and at the very least useless. And in all honesty, I don't even mind having been wounded gazelle'd in elementary school because it taught me a useful skill that helped me later in life." - Tsukubus

What kind of horrible person are you, ignoring issues of right and wrong in favour of what is merely useful? I hope this backfires on you severely.

Honestly, Wounded Gazelling only really works in school, not in the real life. It works in school because authorities don't really try to understand the situation, and generally respond to situations by blindly throwing about their power. As soon as you graduate, it's pretty much something you don't need, and shouldn't, use anymore.

"I didn't steal it; I'm borrowing it until I die."

^I beg to differ. It works anywhere you have a higher authority who is sufficiently removed from the lower ranks that they are out of the day-to-day interaction loop. That means many, many workplaces.

It's still a low, scummy tactic, though.

edited 10th Jan '11 2:06:04 PM by Madrugada

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

Using this tactic amounts to manipulating people, so you get favorable treatment.

And I loathe people who manipulate others to gain what they can't get through more normal means of interpersonal relations.

Of course, that's just my opinion.

Happiness is zero-gee with a sinus cold.

"As soon as you graduate, it's pretty much something you don't need, and shouldn't, use anymore." - Tsukubus

No, you "shouldn't" use the tactic at all, except maybe against those who deserve to have this tactic used against them. Implying that you need no moral justifications to use this kind of tactic is nothing short of evil.

Oh, and when I said backfire, it didn't necessarily have to be continued use. That your past use of it would hurt you in the future would be satisfactory.

If one posits right and wrong exist, they must do so from an entirely subjective basis. I mean, they're merely products of human culture and socialization. The idea "____ is wrong" is no more empirically valid than "_____ is bad-tasting" or "______ is boring" or "_____is fashionable". These are all words that people have used to describe behavior that they have been socialized into.

Some posit the existence of behaviors, that if followed by all, lead to greater gains for all. But that's more enlightened self-interest than anything else. And if we set up a system based on mutual benefits, than it goes without saying that something can't be "wrong", if nobody else finds out, or if you aren't punished for it.

I also find it a bad idea to use it in the workplace. Your success in the workplace is not directly predicated on the failure of others, both coworkers and authorities. In fact, some degree of camaraderie is necessary (even as you try to get ahead of them), so sabotaging coworkers and authorities just seems like a bad idea. Corporate structures are pretty much designed (to varying degrees of success) to force people to work together even if they don't want to. Not to mention at that level, the level of risk becomes unacceptable and it's really impossible to see any kind of likely gain.

edited 11th Jan '11 4:21:28 AM by Tsukubus

"I didn't steal it; I'm borrowing it until I die."

"If one posits right and wrong exist, they must do so from an entirely subjective basis." - Tsukubus

Subjectiveness regardles, it still reflects VERY poorly on what kind of person you are. You give moral relativists a bad name.

"I mean, they're merely products of human culture and socialization." - Tsukubus

If you take it far enough back, yeah. However, modern society has at least partially gotten past that and into the issue of which moral standards are more reasonable.

"These are all words that people have used to describe behavior that they have been socialized into." - Tsukubus

Not really. Plenty of people have went against socialized behaviours in the name of doing what's right.

"Some posit the existence of behaviors, that if followed by all, lead to greater gains for all. But that's more enlightened self-interest than anything else." - Tsukubus

Not the same thing as selfishness. What you are doing is advantaging yourself at the expense of others.

"And if we set up a system based on mutual benefits, than it goes without saying that something can't be "wrong", if nobody else finds out, or if you aren't punished for it." - Tsukubus

Except that it is not beneficial to the people hurt by your tactic. Mutual benefits do not apply.

"Corporate structures are pretty much designed (to varying degrees of success) to force people to work together even if they don't want to. Not to mention at that level, the level of risk becomes unacceptable and it's really impossible to see any kind of likely gain." - Tsukubus

Even if you would see any kind of likely gain that still does not justify it.

Have you no conscience at all? You dismiss morality as a subjective product of socialization, and then you talk exclusively about the practical benefits to yourself without any regard for others. This is the kind of talk one would expect from a sociopath.

edited 11th Jan '11 6:39:35 AM by neoYTPism

As far as I can see, your argument has boils down to "I DON'T LIKE IT". There are certainly "moral" systems that make, or try to make, arguments based on empirical observations, but so far, the only thing I can see is are condemnations based on personal preferences. Is there an empirical observation or direct-line of reasoning that can say A is inherently "wrong" or "right". Do you have a definition of wrong and right? Unless those are fulfilled, "right" becomes THINGS I LIKE and wrong because THINGS I DON'T LIKE. Essentially just a popularity contest for actions. For the vast majority of people, morality is a word they've created to describe the things they just have a personal preference for.

On the other hand, one could say, like some existentialist colleagues, that argue that an object is inherently defined by its actions and thus, a human who murders defines human as an entity that murders, and it is generally bad for someone to reside in a world comprised of entities who murder. Now, I personally don't think the cost-benefits hold up, but that's really impossible to measure, so I could accept such an argument as valid, even if I disagree with it.

edited 11th Jan '11 7:46:16 AM by Tsukubus

"I didn't steal it; I'm borrowing it until I die."

Do you believe that murder is wrong?

Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's Play

It is "wrong" to do because it is illegal and thus guarantees disaster today's era of modern forensics, if that's what you're asking.

"I didn't steal it; I'm borrowing it until I die."

If playing the Wounded Gazelle gambit hooks you up with a nice advantage in your dealings with life, does that make that "right"? Does it follow that if you have a basis of wrong = "I dont' like it", then would the flip-side of that coin be right = "I like it"?

Happiness is zero-gee with a sinus cold.

My dad can attest to this, as he very nearly got fired from his old job because of this from a coworker.

edited 11th Jan '11 10:25:55 AM by Pykrete