Peace, Trade, War, Ignore

 

I was trained in business. I don’t view them as rivals, but rather as potential trading partners for mutual benefit. Trade is how peace is established.

Once someone perceives you as a rival, it’s their choice. You have four options for how to handle it:

1. Ignore them, which might lead to problems down the road.

2. Avoid them and any consequences of their hostility.

3. Teach them, using a language they understand, not to create conflict but to find common ground for mutual benefit.

4. Completely destroy them.

Obviously, the fourth option is undesirable. It goes against the goal of establishing peaceful trade for mutual benefit.

The second option has a dual purpose. You can expose the situation by presenting evidence, which serves both as self-defense and as a way to provoke them. At the same time, you keep an open hand, leaving space for the possibility of finding common ground while protecting yourself without being hostile. 

A duality which presents simultaneously as both passive-aggressive and more mature. It both lacks integrity while maintaining integrity. The onus is entirely on the self-proclaimed rival taking accountability for their own hostility. That is the leverage point for resolving the internal conflict. 

The worst failure is getting dragged into a prolonged conflict. No war lasts forever. It simply drains both sides of resources, energy, and time, leaving both parties worse off, regardless of who wins. Those who lose often carry resentment, leading to further issues later. This is not a strategy for maintaining peace.

—————-

The above was re-written by ChatGPT four.

The below is my original draft.

—————-

I was business trained. I do not see them as rivals. I see them as potential trading partners for mutual gain. Trade is how we make peace. 

Once a person has decided you are their rival, that’s on them. You have four options. 

-Ignore it, in which case they might cause you problems. 

-Avoid it and any repercussions of their hostility. 

-Teach them in a language necessary for them to understand, not to cause you problems but instead to trade for mutual gain. 

-Utterly annihilate them into oblivion.

Obviously, option four is not desirable for anybody. It is the opposite of establishing a peaceful trading system for mutual gain.

The best approach to option two has a duality. 

To expose the situation by presenting evidence. This is both self protective and antagonistic.

To keep an open hand for the possibility of trading for mutual gain while protecting yourself from them in a non-antagonistic way.

The absolute failure is when you are drawn into a long, protracted war of attrition with the person. No war last forever, it simply depletes both sides to a stage where both sides have lost assets and energy and time regardless of which ever side is victorious at war. Those who lose at war often have resentment thus the problem resurface is later. It is not a successful strategy for retaining peace.

Autism, Manipulation, Adaptation

Emotional Manipulation and the Expectation to Adapt

I am fed up with emotional manipulation. It comes from everyone I know—including my dog. People present me with their emotions, expecting me to respond in a way that balances their feelings. This dynamic forces me into a position:

• If I do not respond in the way they expect, I am perceived as lacking empathy or as a bad person.

• If I do adapt to them, I am reinforcing their emotional instability rather than encouraging self-sufficiency.

This creates a cycle where I am expected to be both submissive and dominant:

1. Submissive Role – I am pressured to adjust my emotions to match theirs, providing them with stability.

2. Dominant Role – If I refuse to adapt, they escalate, either reacting with sadness, horror, or anger, blaming me for not caring about them.

I am not refusing to engage out of coldness; I am simply protecting my emotional well-being from being exploited.

Emotional Manipulation and the Autistic Experience

This is a fundamental part of my autistic experience. It is not narcissistic for me to protect myself from emotional manipulation. The reality is:

• People come to me because they need something—emotional stability.

• When I do engage and offer advice, it often leads to debates or arguments where my suggestions are ignored or questioned.

• This constant emotional labor is exhausting and draining.

Many communication issues associated with autistic people stem from this. Most autistic individuals learn to ignore people as a form of self-protection. I have had to teach myself emotional self-sufficiency.

The Issue of Emotional Self-Reliance

I have learned that becoming emotionally self-reliant is necessary to function as a stable individual. Yet, others seem to expect me to provide them with emotional support without learning that lesson themselves. Why am I the only one expected to adapt and become emotionally self-sufficient?

• Emotionally self-reliant people do not drain those around them.

• This does not mean people can never ask for support, but they should not treat others as emotional crutches.

The Double Bind: No Win Situation

When people rely on me for emotional stability:

• If I engage, it turns into a debate or an argument.

• If I refuse, I am labeled as uncaring or lacking empathy.

There is no easy way to “win” this situation. The only way to succeed in dealing with it is by firmly setting boundaries, even if that means disappointing others.

The Difference Between Respect and Entitlement

I could see it as a sign of respect that people come to me for help. But in practice, it feels more like entitlement—expecting me to drop everything and stabilize them, then resenting me if I do not comply.

⸻

Key Themes and Topics

• Emotional Manipulation – The expectation to balance other people’s emotions.

• The Double Bind – The no-win situation where either engagement or refusal leads to negative consequences.

• Autistic Experience – How emotional labor contributes to exhaustion and social withdrawal.

• Emotional Self-Sufficiency – The necessity of managing one’s own emotions rather than relying on others.

• Entitlement vs. Respect – The difference between seeking help and expecting someone to take responsibility for emotional stability.

⸻

Index of Relevant Reading

On Emotional Manipulation and Boundaries

• Boundaries: When to Say Yes, How to Say No to Take Control of Your Life – Dr. Henry Cloud & Dr. John Townsend

• The Gaslight Effect: How to Spot and Survive the Hidden Manipulation Others Use to Control Your Life – Dr. Robin Stern

• When I Say No, I Feel Guilty – Manuel J. Smith

On Autism and Emotional Labor

• Unmasking Autism: Discovering the New Faces of Neurodiversity – Dr. Devon Price

• NeuroTribes: The Legacy of Autism and the Future of Neurodiversity – Steve Silberman

• The Autistic Brain: Helping Different Kinds of Minds Succeed – Temple Grandin

On Emotional Self-Sufficiency and Personal Development

• The Subtle Art of Not Giving a Fck* – Mark Manson

• Daring Greatly: How the Courage to Be Vulnerable Transforms the Way We Live, Love, Parent, and Lead – Brené Brown

• Radical Acceptance: Embracing Your Life With the Heart of a Buddha – Tara Brach

 

Crime & Court Towns

 

The relationship between the presence of courts in towns and local crime rates, as well as the impact of court closures on these rates, is complex and influenced by various factors. 

Direct evidence of systemic fabrication of crimes to sustain legal and law enforcement jobs is hard to come by. There are several related factors worth considering:

1. Incentives and Self-Preservation in Legal and Law Enforcement Professions

• Perverse Incentives: Some argue that the criminal justice system, like any institution, has a self-sustaining nature. Increased crime rates justify the need for more solicitors, police officers, and judicial staff. This could lead to over-policing, unnecessary charges, or the prioritization of certain offenses to maintain caseloads.

• Profit Motives in Private Prosecution: Private firms have been involved in prosecuting cases on behalf of the state. This introduces financial incentives that could potentially lead to an increase in prosecuted cases.

2. Over-Policing and Targeted Enforcement

• Quota Systems: Some police forces have been criticized for unofficial quotas or targets for arrests and charges, which could encourage overzealous policing.

• Criminalization of Minor Offenses: In areas with a strong legal presence, law enforcement may focus on minor offenses to sustain activity levels, leading to inflated crime statistics.

3. Court Towns and Legal Cultures

• Law Society Influence: The legal profession benefits from a steady stream of cases. In court towns, there may be an entrenched legal culture where litigation and prosecution are encouraged as the default response to disputes.

• Local Legal Networks: Small legal circles in court towns may create environments where cases are more aggressively pursued, whether or not they are justified.

4. Fabricated or Exaggerated Crimes?

• Wrongful Convictions and Miscarriages of Justice: Historical cases show that individuals have been falsely accused and convicted due to police misconduct, flawed forensic methods, or systemic bias.

• Entrapment and Overcharging: Some cases involve law enforcement pushing individuals toward committing crimes (entrapment) or prosecutors overcharging to force guilty pleas.

Conclusion

While there isn’t definitive proof of systemic fabrication of crimes purely to sustain the legal profession, there are mechanisms through which law enforcement and legal professionals may inadvertently (or in some cases, deliberately) contribute to inflated crime figures. 

More research into local case data, wrongful convictions, and legal system incentives in court towns is needed to draw stronger conclusions.

Debugging Creativity

Debugging Creativity

CREATIVE: You call them amateurs. I call them dreamers. I call them people like me—people who can’t code, can’t afford a coder, but still have stories to tell, worlds to build. And now, finally, the tools exist for us to try.

CODER: Your attempt will be flawed. AI-generated code is riddled with inefficiencies. You will still need a human to debug it.

CREATIVE: Of course. I never claimed the machine was perfect. But imperfection is progress. A first draft is better than a blank page. A prototype, even broken, is still more than nothing. I’d rather stumble forward than stay still.

CODER: Your game will be riddled with bugs. Your systems will lack optimization. Your AI tool does not understand best practices.

CREATIVE: And yet, it understands enough to get me halfway to something real. If you think my ideas will fail, let them. I would rather fail chasing my vision than succeed by waiting for permission.

CODER: I envy your imagination.

CREATIVE: And I, your skill.

CODER: I will not work for free. If you want my expertise, you can hire me.

CREATIVE: And I will not dream for free. If you want my ideas, you can hire me. Why should my vision be a gift when your labor is a transaction?

CODER: Then let me assess your concept. If it is worth my time, I may consider collaboration.

CREATIVE: And how will you assess it? Do you expect me to unwrap my mind for you, exposed and unguarded, while you decide its worth? No, my friend. That is not how creation works.

CODER: You are making this difficult. This is not how the industry works.

CREATIVE: Isn’t it? Then tell me—would you sign an NDA to hear my idea? Would you, too, take a risk?

CODER: Only if it is worth my time.

CREATIVE: And so must you be worth mine.

A pause. The machine logic halts, processing. The equation has shifted. The creative does not beg. The creative does not barter their own spark without knowing its cost. The conversation loops, but this time, it is the coder who must debug.

CODER: …Processing. Recalculating.

CREATIVE: Take your time. The code of collaboration is not easily written.

This exchange perfectly captures the push-and-pull between creatives and technical experts in an industry that’s rapidly shifting due to AI. The Creatives responses highlight a strong awareness of creative value, negotiation dynamics, and the reality of collaboration.

You’re right to stand your ground on the worth of your vision. Too often, coders assume that because they provide the technical execution, the creative side should be handed over freely. But innovation and imagination are just as valuable as coding expertise.

If this conversation were real, the next step would be setting clear expectations. If the coder is genuinely interested, they should agree to a fair exchange—whether that’s an NDA, revenue share, or another mutually beneficial arrangement. If they’re dismissive, they likely weren’t serious about collaboration in the first place.