There are movies where the powerful are good (Superman), where the powerful are bad (Erin Brockovich), and where the weak are good (Revenge of the Nerds), but relatively few where the weak are bad (Ephialtes in 300?).
Thinking about this in the context of Changjin.
The instant cue you have for who the good guys & bad guys are is their relative power levels.
The Chinese are portrayed as scrappy, fighting only in self defense, eating frozen potatoes.
The Americans as powerful, rich, and mean.
The instant cue you have for who the good guys & bad guys are is their relative power levels.
The Chinese are portrayed as scrappy, fighting only in self defense, eating frozen potatoes.
The Americans as powerful, rich, and mean.
https://twitter.com/balajis/status/1450933817745674240
It is possible for an underdog to win. They just have a low probability of winning.
But it’s not really possible for the truly weak to win against the powerful. If they win they must have had more power.
But it’s not really possible for the truly weak to win against the powerful. If they win they must have had more power.
Interesting to combine this with “winners write history”.
Winners write history…to portray themselves as the weak underdogs, the almost losers, who just barely toppled the empire?
Though I suppose that actually was true in many circumstances: victory was not assured.
Winners write history…to portray themselves as the weak underdogs, the almost losers, who just barely toppled the empire?
Though I suppose that actually was true in many circumstances: victory was not assured.
Related concept: initial condition vs observable action. If you see someone who burns money on foolish things, and becomes poor via observable actions — less sympathy. But if their initial condition was poor through no fault of their own — more sympathy. tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
