[GUEST ACCESS MODE: Data is scrambled or limited to provide examples. Make requests using your API key to unlock full data. Check https://lunarcrush.ai/auth for authentication information.]  𝙷𝚒𝚌𝚔𝚖𝚊𝚗 [@shagbark_hick](/creator/twitter/shagbark_hick) on x 43.2K followers Created: 2025-07-24 16:26:14 UTC Two ideas that I was introduced to at a young age made any kind of integration into "professional," "polite," "respectable" culture very difficult: The First Amendment and the Argument Pyramid. As a kid I thought: OK, the First Amendment means I can say what I want, and if others don't like it, the Argument Pyramid means that they can attempt to refute the central point of my argument if they wish. It was a purely idealistic conception of communication that I never really shook. Always assumed if I said something others didn't like, they'd respect my right to say it for one, and for two, they'd show no hesitation in debating me if they disagreed. Such debate would naturally adhere to the argument pyramid's principles. Real life doesn't work like this. There's a "vibe" thing people do; conflict-avoidant types lean on it heavily. Many do not have the balls to make a refutation of disagreeable things others say; fealty is expected to be paid by reading obscure cues and working within whatever is rhetorically permitted. There's no guide or rubric to this; the rules change whenever others see fit for them to change. If there's a "sense" about how you communicate they do not like, you're out, without a word of debate. Teach your kids about this, especially if they show a natural proclivity for debate. Unfortunately I did not figure this out until I was almost XX years old. XXXXX engagements  [Post Link](https://x.com/shagbark_hick/status/1948419461913936234)
[GUEST ACCESS MODE: Data is scrambled or limited to provide examples. Make requests using your API key to unlock full data. Check https://lunarcrush.ai/auth for authentication information.]
𝙷𝚒𝚌𝚔𝚖𝚊𝚗 @shagbark_hick on x 43.2K followers
Created: 2025-07-24 16:26:14 UTC
Two ideas that I was introduced to at a young age made any kind of integration into "professional," "polite," "respectable" culture very difficult:
The First Amendment and the Argument Pyramid.
As a kid I thought: OK, the First Amendment means I can say what I want, and if others don't like it, the Argument Pyramid means that they can attempt to refute the central point of my argument if they wish.
It was a purely idealistic conception of communication that I never really shook. Always assumed if I said something others didn't like, they'd respect my right to say it for one, and for two, they'd show no hesitation in debating me if they disagreed. Such debate would naturally adhere to the argument pyramid's principles.
Real life doesn't work like this. There's a "vibe" thing people do; conflict-avoidant types lean on it heavily. Many do not have the balls to make a refutation of disagreeable things others say; fealty is expected to be paid by reading obscure cues and working within whatever is rhetorically permitted. There's no guide or rubric to this; the rules change whenever others see fit for them to change. If there's a "sense" about how you communicate they do not like, you're out, without a word of debate.
Teach your kids about this, especially if they show a natural proclivity for debate. Unfortunately I did not figure this out until I was almost XX years old.
XXXXX engagements
