Thread by @visakanv

I don’t think I talk about it explicitly much, but generally speaking I’ve always thought it makes more sense to acquire more wealth & influence than to argue about it with strangers. Like even a dollar is worth more than yelling at some anon online

https://twitter.com/the_aiju/status/1361459576256741376

this can seem cringe but it’s also true that a lot of the people who argue about who’s in charge of the world or their country etc could spend more time thinking about how much of themselves they’re in charge of, and how good a job *they* are doing as monarch of their domain

which isn’t to handwave away systemic failings, but how much can you really influence The System directly? I say this as an optimist who wants to make a difference!! My assessment and reading have led me to believe that it requires playing a very, very long game, strategically

hmm... [spaces out] at the end of the day... a lot of what I’ve been thinking about for a long time, here and elsewhere, is the nature of strategy, and how unstrategic people tend to be, for understandable and yet frustrating reasons

so my playbook is like

rather than yell at the guys at the big table and hope that leads to something

build your own little table and invite the best people you know

use that to build power & influence & find more people still

expand the table, connect with other tables

It’s interesting to navigate the objections and criticisms have of this

one is “all tables bad”, which... ok

another interesting one is that some people actually pedestalize the big table and think they are relatively worthless in comparison - they accept the moral hierarchy!

it’s something like how some atheists still have God at the center of their lives - as an object of derision, sure, but haters are fans too, and a heterodoxy that’s just an inverted orthodoxy is still following a script very closely. Some people do this with all authority figures

while there are skilful, artful ways to embody these positions - thoughtful anarchists etc - they can also be used in blundersome ways as smoke screens to avoid facing up to one’s own power, one’s own authority, and the responsibilities that come with that

my friend Chelsea once wrote this really thoughtful article about how, as the founder/CEO of her company, her team looked to her for stability, leadership, guidance, etc - and her natural tendency to go “haha idk lol” was neither serving her nor them. Cuteness has its place

Some people avoid this by never being founder/CEO of anything, but you can’t run from responsibility forever. At the very least you are responsible for yourself. You can try to run away from that but historically this isnt an effective strategy & it tends to lead to bad outcomes

old thread where a younger, less experienced and more frightened & confused version of myself is making sense of all of this:

https://twitter.com/visakanv/status/981637431639228416

I feel like I skipped past a point that’s important to make: people who shroud themselves in a cloak of righteous anti-authoritarianism are the often ones who get away with being vindictive, manipulative bullies towards the people in their own crew

this doesn’t mean authority (order) good and anti-authority (chaos) bad, obviously life is about balance and creative destruction and so on. It’s just tragic to hear about young people who are shocked to find themselves being abused by vocal anti-abuse advocates