The left are actually conservatives

You're a conservative.

We're all conservative

Not politically

To conserve past good to keep intact for the future.

What's good from the past worth keeping?

Liberal progressive are we at the best point ever in human history for you? Is the world the best it's ever been? It should be by progressive logic, we're better today than yesterday. If that doesn't feel true then you're a conservative, that some things at some point in the past was better, therefore it's good to conserve.

You can't say it's really bad today, everything is broken and the best it's ever been in everything. Both things can't be true.

If you think they can exist together, then humanity can never get any worse by it's own hand.

Catch this for a better life

 The amount of good things in your life depends on your ability to notice them.

I'm some way, ever map is wrong

 https://youtu.be/LCUImXuwaUw?si=RyiJWaesXDPGPLHW

Bad people gonna bad

 “Comparing your best to their worst” It's all just a slider, where you want one comparison to start and one to end. Everyone is tweaking the positioning sliders to suit what they're trying to argue. That's why without some basic shared realities we can't be stable on common ground.

How about 10% of “manosphere” is bad? 25% 33%? 

How about 7% of “feminists” have sinister motives, 15% 33%?

Bad people gonna bad. Greedy people gonna greed, power driven people gonna play. They use the power and culture structures of society for their advantage.

You've hoodwinked into believing there's good over here and bad over there and forever seperate the two. Good can attract the bad and the bad can seduce the good.

It's easy to point to a problem. It's hard to improve a situation. Here's my sincere attempt (a private activity) - “what's their name?”. Name people in your circles, in your spheres. Not the infamous outliers, your world. ‘Men are like this…’ What's their name. ‘Women do this…’ What's their name? ‘Society tells me…’ What's their name? 'I heard that...' What's their name? 'People are so mean...' What's their name?

If you can name people and they know your name, that problem is very real and it's at home. But if you can't name any… …

What's more tasteful than taste that's the opposite of taste?

Playing in the sand of subjectivity is important but maybe there's something more important...

In touch disgust

AI might pretend it has taste but it shows its hand with lacking discernment of what's on the nose.

Preventing your WW3

 

From a lawyer

There is something I wish I'd understood much earlier in my legal career.

I used to prepare for what I thought should happen.

The reasonable outcome.

The logical response.

The thing any rational person would obviously do.

And then I'd watch someone do the exact opposite.

Reject an excellent settlement.

Spend $20,000 fighting over something worth $5,000.

Make an accusation that could easily be disproven.

Create another problem when everyone was finally close to resolution.

I'd think:

Why would anyone do that?

Eventually I realized I was asking the wrong question.

Stop Predicting What Makes Sense

Start predicting what makes sense to them.

That's completely different.

If you're dealing with a high-conflict personality, don't ask:

"What would a reasonable person do next?"

Ask:

"What does this person have an incentive to do next?"

That question has saved me more times than I can count.

Because people don't necessarily make decisions based on what is objectively best.

They make decisions based on what they value.

Control.

Money.

Status.

Privacy.

Winning.

Avoiding embarrassment.

Punishing someone.

Protecting a narrative.

Keeping access to you.

Those incentives can be completely different from yours.

Here's Something You Can Do Today

I call this the Incentive Test.

Take the person on the other side of your conflict and answer four questions:

1. What do they SAY they want?

Write it down.

2. What does their BEHAVIOR suggest they want?

This is usually much more interesting.

3. What are they trying hardest to avoid?

Expense?

Exposure?

A deposition?

Losing control?

A particular person seeing certain information?

Uncertainty?

4. What would make resolution more attractive than continued conflict?

Now you're thinking strategically.

You're no longer predicting behavior based on what you would do.

You're looking at the world from their side of the chessboard.

Fucked over? Here's how

DARVO meaning

Deny = Reject what you’re saying, change the frame, gaslight.
Attack = Move away from the original point to whatever puts you on the defensive. Destroy your credibility.
Reverse victim and offender = Reposition themselves as the victim. Recast you as the villain and moral wrongdoer, so the whole story is rewritten around what you supposedly did to them, making their retaliation seem justified to themselves and onlookers.

DARVO always wins when it's just people talking. Complicated truths can't compete against simple lies and moving goalposts.