"Would you give money to a bully to keep him from beating you up every day?"

[conuly]

What the hell sort of question is that? Of course I'd pay up! I have money, pride, and my teeth, and of the three, I can least afford to lose the last. Wouldn't almost anybody submit to the shakedown? That's how protection rackets work, after all - everybody does the same math and comes to the same conclusion as I just did.

(Of course, the context was "I think this company was rude to me over the phone, therefore I decided to live without hot water and heating because I have my principles" so, you know, I guess we have different approaches to life?)

*****************

The names of the 5 siblings of the Wright brothers

In 1916, hybrid cars could’ve changed history, but Ford wouldn’t allow it.

Trump's spy chief Gabbard winds down intelligence task force

In the Arctic, the major climate threat of black carbon is overshadowed by geopolitical tensions

Minneapolis now has daily deportation flights. One man has been documenting them

The Fall of the House of Assad

Comments

[siliconshaman]

I'd pay, and secretly record it all and take that to the police. Extortion is a crime after all.

[redbird]

That is a weird context for the question about paying a bully. Without that, I'd say the question is figuring out when it makes sense to pay the bully off. Harvard seems to be doing at least as well after not paying Trump'x extortion, as some universities that did hand over large sums of money.

This isn't even "if you pay Danegeld, you will never be rid of the Dane." It's that a protection racket doesn't work if the crook takes the money and destroys the store anyway.

[hudebnik]

Whether to pay for a protection racket depends in part on your assessment of the racketeer's psychology.

If the racketeer has a long-term view, and is capable of delayed gratification, the racketeer will demand of you no more than you can sustainably pay, and the relationship might go on for years, during which you'll avoid getting beaten up, and the racketeer will make a lot of money.

If the racketeer is motivated by short-term greed, then paying the protection money this month (and not getting anything in return other than "I probably won't beat you up this month") simply means the price will go up next month, and the next, until one way or another you stop paying. At which point you're just as beaten-up as, and substantially poorer than, if you hadn't paid in the first place.

If the racketeer is motivated by dominance, the amount of protection money isn't as important as the fact that he can demand it any time he wishes. The unbounded monthly increases aren't measured in dollars, but in humiliation. Demanding an unscheduled payment at 3 AM the day before your daughter's wedding isn't unfortunate timing, it's the whole point.

Our beloved President, of course, is mostly in the third (occasionally the second) category.

[archersangel]

i knew there was a sister of the Wright brothers because she supported them by taking care of the house and stuff while they worked in the bike shop and on their airplane, but either didn't know her name or forgot it.

[malada]

Reminds me of a story a friend told me about a bullied kid in his high school. The kid - small, wore glasses, carried his books everywhere - got punched everyday by the school bully. This went on for about a week.

Then the kid stuck a knife in the bully's stomach.

The school cheered. The kid got suspended. The bully went to the hospital. As far as I know the kid was never bothered again.

[jessie_c]

...if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.