I don’t think the kind of compromise that is necessary is able to be stated in the way you’re asking for, because of how values feed into beliefs.

Take abortion rights for example: someone who would describe themselves as “pro-life” may argue something that is effectively saying that murdering babies is never okay. I would be in complete agreement there. As someone who is “pro-choice”, the core of my argument is usually some form of “a clump of cells that could become a person does not trump the rights to bodily autonomy that an existing person has”. No progress will be made in this discussion unless we can address the fact that the vast majority of abortions are nowhere near “murdering babies”. That’s where compromise is most likely to happen, in the discussion that arises when trying to reconcile different word views, and coming to speak in mutually intelligible terms.

For example, one area where I and many other abortion advocates have compromised on this front is recognising that the line between “a clump of cells” and “a baby” is pretty blurry. Personally, I don’t know where I stand on where the law should stand on that line; in my country, abortions after 24 weeks can only be done in exceptional cases (mother’s health at risk, foetal anomalies etc.). I think a time limit like this seems reasonable, but I’m not sure whether at 24 weeks, a foetus is more like a clump of cells, or a baby. I have personally had a very early term abortion, and I’m grateful to have had that opportunity, because I have no idea how I’d feel if I was in that 20-24 weeks range. Acknowledging this uncertainty I feel is part of how compromise works. I would hope that someone on the “other side” of the argument would apply a similar approach to try to understand and entertain my argument wrt bodily autonomy. In a way, this is an easy example, because all the leeway in positions has been explored, and the core issue is something that can’t be compromised on (such as how I can’t have a productive discussion with people who are actively against women’s bodily autonomy, or people who believe that life starts at conception).

An area in which I’m working on trying to compromise on is trying to reshape how I think about farmers and other similar social groups. Farmers are a good example because I am a very left wing, queer, university-educated city-living scientist who has Opinions on the climate, and I’m very socially progressive. To some people, I am the big bad Other, an inherent problem with the world. I don’t like this, because certainly I don’t see myself as “the problem”. I’d actually rather like to be part of the solution, but I won’t do that well if I take the easy route of dismissing people like this as just racist, idiotic bigots whose opinions I shouldn’t care about. Many of them are bigoted, but if I don’t want to mass exterminate people whose views are unacceptable to me, nor be exterminated myself, I need to try to imagine a world where I could break bread with these people. That’s a pretty difficult challenge.

PhilosophyTube’s video on Judith Butler helped a lot on this actually. I have been realising more and more that the common ground that exists between me and many of my “political enemies” is that we are humans who are scared and struggling, like me. When I feel hopeless, solidarity pulls me through, and thinking in this way makes it easier to feel compassion for people whose anger and bigotry isolates them from this kind of community support: a person can simultaneously be a product of their environment, and responsible for their actions; they can both be a victim of fascist ideology (through becoming isolated, disempowered and stewing in hate), and also an active perpetrator of said hate.

This reframing isn’t itself compromise, but hopefully if I continue to work to see what I share with the people I most disagree with, I’ll be able to have the kinds of conversations that build compromise. Successful compromise takes a small amount of shared ground and extends that, bit by bit, person by person. That’s why I think your question didn’t get the answers you were hoping for: by the time things become solidified into political parties and manifesto stances, there isn’t much fluidity and ambiguity left to act as space for new, shared understanding.

If you made it to the end of this comment, thanks for bearing with my meandering. If you’d like to read an essay about compromise that’s a much better story than my rambles, you might enjoy this article about a beautifully mundane yet improbable compromise helped build the internet. . The whole article is great, but I especially love this part:

"In the beginning, the disagreements seemed insurmountable, and Miller felt disheartened: ‘The first night we thought: This is gonna fail miserably. At first nobody saw eye to eye or trusted each other enough yet to let each other in and try to figure out the art of the possible.’ But as concessions and then agreements were made, people began to feel energised by the creation of a new system, even if imperfect; one piece at a time, their system could bring the content of the web within reach for everyone. As Caplan remembers: ‘By the second day, there was a lot of drinking and all-night working groups. We were running on adrenaline and energy. By the last day, we realised we were making history.’ "

I take heart in the understanding that compromise is messy, and hard to evaluate when you’re in the thick of it.

I think I saw a paper on this kind of thing over a year ago. Iirc, it said that engagement is lower on Mastodon, but higher quality.

I haven’t self harmed for a long time

Your comment has made me understand this better than anything I’ve previously read has. Thanks for sharing your perspective.

Oh yeah, Bluey is pretty great. I have a couple friends who don’t have kids who put it on when they need soft, warm, background noise. It’s better than a lot of stuff for the same age range — I have a brother who is significantly younger than me, so I’ve seen my fair share of children’s TV trash and Bluey is a freshing contrast

Ask her what her favourite episode is. Once you get small kids talking, it’s actually great, they tell such great stories.

Share (age appropriate of course) opinions of your own along the way. Like, don’t just say “have you seen [episode with pots and pans]”, expand it by saying stuff like you’ve not seen much Bluey, but you have seen the one with the pots and pans — does she know the one you mean? I suggest this because kids are actually pretty socially adept and I’ve found myself in analogous situations where I caused confusion by mentioning something I barely knew and the kid reasonably interpreted this as “this person wants to talk about this thing”, and then when I didn’t seem to know anything about the topic I had suggested, the kid seemed pretty thrown off and uncertain how to respond.

Or completely open ended questions, like “I know you like Bluey, but I’ve never seen it before. What’s your favourite episode?”, which could lead into asking for more details on what happened in that particular episode and why she likes it.

The thing about small talk is that I’ve found there’s a distinction between being good at it, and enjoying it. I used to think I was awful at smalltalk, before I realised that actually, I just didn’t find it enjoyable. I think to some extent, the point isn’t to enjoy it, but to build a conversational back and forth rally which builds initial rapport to figure out what common ground exists between two people (which can lead to more enjoyable proper conversation). Some people do enjoy small talk though. The rally model was useful for me because it underscored how I need to serve the other person options to hit back with.

For example, most kids go to school, so that’s a decent enough topic for if you’re running out of ideas. With kids, you can get away with clunky conversation starters like “What’s your favourite subject at school?”. Better than that though is something like “My favourite subject at school is science, what’s yours?” because it gives your conversation partner the option of responding either to your statement (such as with “ugh, I hate science, [teacher] is so mean!”), or your question, and having multiple options to hit back with allows for flow to help. Once you hit on a topic the kid is excited to talk about, you’re golden: just keep being interested in their perspective and give bits of your own perspective so they don’t feel like they’re being interrogated.

Edit: This was a great question, btw OP — It’s led to a lot of interesting discussion, thanks for asking it

Oh my gosh, that’s incredible. It’s so cool to compare it to This one from 12 years ago

Oh no, now I’m going to have to search for an old floppy disc

Okay, I think you win on the “insignificant decision” part of this question. That’s hilariously butterfly-effect. You tell the story well; I bet you’ve told it before.

“In fact, you’re usually hoping it’s a vagina goo shart because you can just wipe that out with toilet paper and move on with your day.”

Oh man, this is relatable. Reading this transported me to past situations where I sat uncomfortable and anxious until I could get to a bathroom and check. Solidarity

I’ve always felt like a lot of the assumptions in Fermi’s Great Filter feels off. Like, the way we talk about “intelligent life” feels iffy, both in astrophysics and other fields. I’m not great at articulating this, but if you’re one for video essays, Dr Fatima Abdurrahman recently made a video that captured much of what I’d struggled to say on this. (https://youtu.be/_tw0aqmnmaw)

If the thing you’re needing to do is a Big Scary Serious Task, pace yourself. I’ve been overstretched in recent months, and I fell into a pattern where I would keep cutting down the things I was trying to do. The first things on the chopping block were the “non essentials”, the things that were strategically important to the task, but made me happy.

Now I feel like a husk of a human and I don’t have much I can do to cheer myself up when I’m having a bad day. None of my nice things are accessible. I’ve built a life for myself where the Tasks ™ are all that exist. Ultimately, it’s harmed my productivity, but I’ve discovered that too late. Now I’m fumbling to try build up the self care stuff while also struggling to stay on top of the Tasks ™. It’s a lot, and I have regrets.

Try not to fall into this same trap. If you’re lying in bed, thinking “I should get up and do important thing”, but dread paralyses you and you do nothing, then that’s a materially worse world than if you had said “fuck important thing, I’m going to get out of bed and do this fun thing”. Sometimes I would “allow” myself to do the fun thing, but I’d feel guilty about it, undermining it’s benefit. Let yourself be where you’re at, because bullying isn’t going to fix it.

It can be hard to distinguish between self harm and self care when things are rough. I’m not talking about physical self injury self harm, but things like staying up late to play video games. Whether it’s harm or care depends on the circumstances and I have had situations where I’ve lied to myself and said that giving myself that extra slack is self care, when actually, it was just avoidance dressed up nicely. It’s exhausting to always be second guessing yourself, so my biggest advice is to be kind to yourself on a meta level - sometimes you’re going to make bad decisions that make things harder for yourself, but remember that you’re trying your best. Even making this post is an example of you trying.

It’s not your fault if you need more support than what you’re getting in life. Try to remember that. It doesn’t materially change anything, because life’s pressures will keep coming, no matter how we frame them. Just try not to be too harsh on yourself, even if it feels like your output is not enough for your needs. Things are often shit and the fact you’re here at all is pretty fucking incredible. I know it’s hard, and I know you’re trying, and I’m proud of you. This part’s addressed to anyone reading.