The best way to defeat an enemy is to surround him with sycophants.
Have you ever wondered why Hillarity Clingon is not now President Elect of the United States of America?
I know - it's been on your mind ever since the shock election in that country. Indeed, if you're a social justice warrior type, one of those adult baby types romping around in a weaponised blaze of anger, you can probably think of nothing else. Poor you.
But I'll tell you one good reason. She never got any criticism, at least not from anyone within her circle. If the stories are correct, also, she would bite the head off anyone who dared question her, anyway, so no real surprises there.
But when we talk about criticism, we're not talking about the sort of criticism she might give - a sort of extreme prejudice cursing-in-a-heap - no, we're talking about constructive criticism. And here's the interesting thing. You see, social justice warrior types tend not to know what they want - they know what they are told not to want, through a mixture of lies and hear-say. Thus they want to tear things down which they believe symbolise the establishment, without having a plan to build anything up in its place. Indeed, they don't want to build anything in its place, because generally they've got no idea of what the world actually needs: they haven't reached that far in the How to Be a Proper Person book.
Everything, to them, is about feelings and, as they equate criticism with hurt feelings and pricked bubbles, they won't criticise people they care about. But constructive criticism - perhaps followed by a discussion, with evidence - builds people up, if done the right way. Of course, if you're going to say that's a stupid thing to do or perhaps, even, you're doing it wrong, that's not going to help much even if you do offer a solution because the first part of the aimed-for dialogue blanks off all other communication no matter how eloquent. If you say, however, that's good, but I personally wouldn't have done it that way, or maybe watch out for this or that, then it might be more conducive to constructive dialogue.
I doubt very much that Hillarity Clingon had any of that, however. I believe, from the way things went, that it was like a car heading for a wall at high speed and her lackeys were telling her she was doing well. You saw this in the polling which, for the most part, had Her Imperial Majesty five or ten points ahead when in reality she was bringing up the rear much of the time.
Still, if that's what she wanted to hear, you can lead a horse to water but you can't educate pork.
What do you think? How would you have fared without fawning sycophants? Would you have welcomed criticism? Let us know in the comments below and, as always, like and share this article as you see fit.
