Read on Twitter
Close. Before we can even begin to compromise, a bad actor must stop *being* unjust.
But it's true to say it is why one can never talk or agree to anything with people who show they never intended to agree, who only use talk as a distraction or a competition or a game. https://twitter.com/Sus_Destroyman/status/1292332503618015234
But it's true to say it is why one can never talk or agree to anything with people who show they never intended to agree, who only use talk as a distraction or a competition or a game. https://twitter.com/Sus_Destroyman/status/1292332503618015234
Say there's a pie, cut into 8 pieces, a gift for Tim and Pam and Dan.
Tim suggests they each enjoy 2 pcs, & cut the remaining 2 into 3rds.
Pam suggests 2 pcs each is enough; the remainder can be left for others.
Dan suggests Pam shouldn't get any pie, or be allowed to adopt.
Tim suggests they each enjoy 2 pcs, & cut the remaining 2 into 3rds.
Pam suggests 2 pcs each is enough; the remainder can be left for others.
Dan suggests Pam shouldn't get any pie, or be allowed to adopt.
There's nothing to discuss w/Dan. His premise is disqualifying.
There's no reason to discuss *why* he wants to exclude Pam. The only relevant fact is *that he wants to*. His reasons are immaterial next to that unacceptable premise.
Before any compromise, Dan has to change.
There's no reason to discuss *why* he wants to exclude Pam. The only relevant fact is *that he wants to*. His reasons are immaterial next to that unacceptable premise.
Before any compromise, Dan has to change.
Now say Pam and Tim, for the sake of civility, suggest, let's all just have ONE piece of pie and enjoy the rest later.
Dan agrees but he insists on distributing the pieces.
After a long discussion—much longer than s/b necessary for something simple like pie—Pam and Tim agree.
Dan agrees but he insists on distributing the pieces.
After a long discussion—much longer than s/b necessary for something simple like pie—Pam and Tim agree.
Dan hands a piece to Tim, then takes three for himself. Then he wrecks the rest of the pie with his hands and throws a handful on the floor for Pam.
At this point, Dan has proved himself unworthy of discussion, on ANY topic.
For any discussion to occur, Dan has to change.
At this point, Dan has proved himself unworthy of discussion, on ANY topic.
For any discussion to occur, Dan has to change.
Dan might complain that he's being excluded from conversation, but his premise is still unacceptable, and he's proven that he has no interest even in compromise from that unacceptable position.
Dan might say pointing this fact out is discriminatory, but Dan's an abusive liar.
Dan might say pointing this fact out is discriminatory, but Dan's an abusive liar.
If Dan is excluded from all conversation and negotiation going forward, that's something Dan has done to Dan, and that only Dan can fix—by changing.
Pam knows compromise with Dan is impossible.
Tim should know any compromise he makes with Dan will betray Pam.
Pam knows compromise with Dan is impossible.
Tim should know any compromise he makes with Dan will betray Pam.
There's no discussion or compromise to be had with people who have announced they intend harm and exclusion, and demonstrated they don't seek compromise
No point in debating the facts of the case with someone who refuses to acknowledge the harm they've already done.
No point in debating the facts of the case with someone who refuses to acknowledge the harm they've already done.
Agreeing to compromise with abusive people, who have made no change to their abusive positions and tactics, is itself abuse.
Expecting people under real and present threat of abuse to compromise with an abuser, while the abuse is ongoing, is itself abuse.
Expecting people under real and present threat of abuse to compromise with an abuser, while the abuse is ongoing, is itself abuse.
The next time there's a pie, there's no discussion with Dan about the extra 2 pieces. There's certainly no thought of letting him control distribution.
That's not something Pam and Tim are doing to Dan. It's a healthy reflection of the reality that Dan created for them all.
That's not something Pam and Tim are doing to Dan. It's a healthy reflection of the reality that Dan created for them all.
Tim and Pam give him his share and take their share. Then the two who are actually interested in good ends decide what to do with the remainder.
Until Dan is interested in something other than exclusion, dominance, and destruction, his opinion isn't wanted.
That's healthy.
Until Dan is interested in something other than exclusion, dominance, and destruction, his opinion isn't wanted.
That's healthy.
Refusing to talk or compromise with Dan *is* the discussion.
It's a clear announcement that Dan's premise is unworthy of discussion, and that by his behavior he's proved himself untrustworthy in negotiation.
He gets his pie.
Until he changes, it's all he should get.
It's a clear announcement that Dan's premise is unworthy of discussion, and that by his behavior he's proved himself untrustworthy in negotiation.
He gets his pie.
Until he changes, it's all he should get.
