Imagine that two kingdoms are at war, let’s call one the Kingdom of Letoid (The Letoids), and the other kingdom is the Kingdom of Righcuk (The Righcuks). These two kingdoms have been at war for 30 years, and it’s very clear that the Letoids have the upper-hand, although due to internal stability issues, they must negotiate a ceasefire with the Righcuks. The Letoid kingdom sends a liaison to the Righcuks offering a meeting between the two kingdoms to discuss a ceasefire. After much deliberation by the Righcuks, they agree to meet.

Fast-forward to the day of the meeting, the Letoid king and the Righcuk king meet in a royal retreat held by a neutral party. First, the Righcuk King walks in, looks around, then takes a seat. Afterwards, the Letoid king walks in. The Righcuk watches in horror as the Letoid king comes into view, due to noticing that he is equipped with his war sword, something the Righcuk did not bring.

Now, this meeting between the two warring sides is different due to the bringing in of the sword. The negotiations are going to be tense due to the simple fact that the Letoid king could, at any time, kill the Righcuk king, thus crippling the already fledgling Righcuk kingdom. That could also not happen as well, but the very fact it creates a power-dynamic in room. The Righcuk can’t argue as hard for his terms of a ceasefire due to the risk to his body, and the Letoid has a lot of pushing power because, at any time, he may kill the unarmed Righcuk king.

Now, replace the Letoid King with a true-believer progressive, the Righcuk king with literally any less-than-orthodox right-winger, and the sword with a set of emails that can be sent to an employer, school, or social platform, and you suddenly have a very familiar situation. This familiar situation is why that righties, at least smart righties, don’t interface with lefties under any circumstance, even the earnest ones.

Who brings a sword to a peace talk?

The allegory posits that Letoids, our allegory for Lefties in this circumstance, are in a position of power. Which, if you’re in denial of, either is a sign of ignorance or willing blindness. I have other articles on the issue of lefty power, and Curtis Yarvin has even better ones. Either way, Lefties are the more powerful than righties, and yet may want to talk to righties for some reason. Rather that’s to “pwn” them, “educate” them, or humiliate them, or maybe out of earnest concern, I don’t know, nor does it really matter. Either way, lefties want to talk to righties, and sometimes righties agree to do that.

The issue comes in when you get to the talk itself, it’s not on equal ground, especially if it’s publicized. The righty automatically is at a disadvantage when talking to the lefty due to the implied power dynamic between the two. A lefty, even a well-meaning one, has the ability to ensure that the righty is out of a job or other opportunity with very little effort. Rather that’s directly, through personally contacting employers and funders of the righty (or the funder’s employers), or indirectly through the audience watching the event being the ones to make contact.

The act of tattle-telling on a righty for being a “stupid fucking chud” isn’t even the risk here, instead, it’s the leviathan this action wakes up. Public out-cry, deplatforming, and a general use of power to put pressure on the righty and his associates for daring to say something heretical is the risk, something the lefty has the power to do just by the nature of being a lefty. At any time, if a lefty desires, he could call upon the leviathan of social shaming and power to punish a righty for having unorthodox opinions. This is made even worse if there’s an audience involved, as any one of those people could summon a leviathan to strike at the righty.

So, when a righty and a lefty comes together, even in an earnest attempt at finding common ground, the righty is in a very weak position due to the lefties leviathan-summoning sword, a sword that simply cannot be discarded by a lefty as it is a tool given to him due to his status as a lefty. Even if the sword is never used, the threat of it is still there so long as it exists in proximity to the righty. If the sword can be swung, the leviathan can be awoken, and if the leviathan can be awoken, the righty can go through a living hell.

How to stop bringing swords to your peace talks

If you’re an earnest lefty, which I doubt you are given that you’re a lefty (in almost all experiences I have had with lefties, they’ve been proud to use that sword against me), just be aware your sword is something you cannot discard. It’s a calling card to your status as a lefty, and to discard it would mean discarding the ability to enact social justice, which would make you a rather unprogressive, and thus an enemy of progress. Funnily enough, this is why the often boring “racist liberals” whose takes are as bland as white bread can somehow be lumped in with the fascists, monarchists, populists, and theocrats.

However, that fact is not relevant to the conversation. Instead, we’re trying to figure out how to get rid of this sword. Obviously, I as a righty, would suggest that you simply discard it and join my team (or become a boring old racist liberal, if you must) so you can’t hurt me, but that’s not really convincing if you’re a reasonable person who needs reasonable reasons to pick a side. My goal isn’t to convince you to stop being a lefty, I have other writings for that, so, we’ll go to the next best thing to removal: minimization.

How to make the sword you bring to the peace talk not as dangerous

I, as a liberty-minded individual, immediately think of our righty friend bringing a sword to the meeting would even things out, and it would. If both sides have a sword, then both sides have a chance of losing out in a peace talk if something went poorly. Swords are rather cheap as well, so, clearly, this would be the solution to our problem. However, this is where our allegory, as it stands, breaks down.

Remember, our sword is an allegory for the ability to cancel someone, not for physical violence. The ability to cancel someone, unlike a sword, is dangerous not due to its direct attack of a lefty, but rather due to the consequences incurred by the power behind the individual who can cancel. A sword merely needs one user to be dangerous, the ability to cancel needs many individuals to be dangerous, and compounds in danger the more individuals of power back the cancel-calling individual.

To modify our allegory, our Letoid’s sword should be replaced with an ability to mark the Righcuk king, and his lineage, for death with relative ease. Even if the Righcuk brought a sword to the battle, he could easily have his bloodline tainted by the Letoid by even slighting him. This situation is less concrete than the original, but more accurate to the type of danger that a lefty brings to the table when merely talking.

So, no, our righty, nor our Righcuk king, could bring a sword and be fine, instead, something must be done by the lefty, and the Letoid, to make the situation less dangerous.

How to ACTUALLY stop being dangerous at peace talks.

The solution depends on who you are. The more complex solution is for lefties, since they have the most power. Because of that, we’ll start with their solution:

Lefties, to stop scaring righties every time you want to have an earnest talk, you must stop making spectacles. Spectacles have audiences, and audiences have the magic sword-hex, mark-of-death from the leviathan you have. All it takes is a couple of people (likely less) coming together to mark the righty for death. This makes the necessary parties to be acting in good faith go up quite a lot. If it’s just you talking to a righty, with no audience, then the number of people to trust goes down to one. As a general engineering rule, the fewer parts in your system, the less likely it will fail. Similarly, the fewer parties to go public with some unsavory information about a righty, the less risk there is for the righty.

Secondly, stating openly to the righty that you will not cancel the individual, that the meeting will happen in private, and, if possible, putting collateral up to lose, will make the righty safer. These are all moves that extend good will to the righty. Acknowledging the risks he will take by merely discussing something with you puts the deal clear on the table, for him to accept or decline. Ensuring the meeting will happen in private (and will stay private) will keep outside ears out of the conversation, decreasing the amount of people necessary to trust, and putting up some kind of collateral for if things will go bad will incentivize you, the lefty, to keep your deal up. Sometimes, this collateral is as simple as merely being friends already, as a cancelation of a friend would lead to losing said friend. Sometimes mere association with the righty could be a bad thing, since some righties are barred from being in the public ever and could get the leviathan on you. Either way, offering something to balance out the risk would increase safety.

Finally, if possible, know nothing about the righty. This mostly applies to the internet, but the less you know about the righty, and the more the righty knows about how little you know, the less effect you can have on the righty. If you can’t dox the righty, how can the leviathan get the righty fired? Anonymity is the greatest protection against the social forces the leviathan can enact.

All these tactics together should ideally get you the earnest conversation you want out of the righty due to it eliminating the risks the lefties powers can bring.

Now, for righties, the answer to talking with lefties is to never do it unless you are certain you are safe. While some lefties may be disheartened to hear this advice after the massive requirements given to leftists to talk to rightists, but this too is for the safety of the rightists. Many leftists are out for clout, and to get clout you must trade blood, ideally righty blood. Many leftists won’t read this article, and thus won’t know how to accommodate righties in their vulnerable positions. So, the safe option for righties is simply to not engage.

But why even bother?

All this is a lot of effort, and that effort is not as sexy as a highly-publicized debate, but it’s important still. Just like how the kings from the allegory are in peace talks, the left and the right should be too. Both sides have a lot to lose if it came down to continuing the cold civil war, especially if it got hot. The more understanding between both sides that is created, the more that toleration of the different and synthesis of solutions can happen. While neither of these are a guarantee, and to some extent, it’s fine that some things are simply intolerable on both sides, less fighting can be ensured through good faith talks. Perhaps, the difference between a violent revolution and a peaceful one is a couple talks between righties and lefties away. I don’t know that for sure, no one does, but maybe it’s worth the effort if it means avoiding bloodshed.