Too late. It is already a civil war. The right-wing is in open war against democracy and truth. It is a cold civil war against America. The only question is when it becomes a hot civil war.

"High conflict" is already here. It is the the natural nature of a right-winger.

> a fight less about the issue at hand and more about owning the other side.
Yes, "owning the libs" is about the only policy of the right wing left. They have no real other policy. Unless you consider bringing more suffering, more lies, and more death to the table.

> I have yet to read her book, but it seems to me that the difference between good conflict and high conflict is that in good conflict our position is negotiable, while in high conflict our position is sacred.

The Big Lie is now the sacred position. The right-wing never negotiates or acts in good faith. Deception is the name of the game already. To act in any form of good faith is viewed as weak by the right wing. You do not negotiate with a right winger. They will only accept you bending the knee.

> In high conflict, we cannot imagine that our adversaries could have any legitimate justification for their beliefs.

The right wing has rejected democracy and truth. They want fascism. There's no need to find out the justification for evil. I do not need legitimate or illegitimate justification to not want their results.

> Ripley suggests that to get out of high conflict, one needs to “investigate the understory.” As she puts it to Mounk, “Every conflict has a thing we argue about endlessly, and then the thing it’s really about.”

There is no "understory" for the right wing anymore. There is no "story" even. Only daily new lies and deceit.

> If you try to find an “understory” for your opponent, then, rather than take their opinions at face value

We do not need an understory for the right wing. They seek to overthrow our democracy. They say to your face the evil they intend. You can believe them.

> It keeps you from listening to the other person, and moreover the other person knows that you are not listening.

The right wing has stopped listening long ago. Or they listen a little but repeat deception, lies, and half-truth for their propaganda.

> What emotion am I feeling that makes me too heavily invested in this dispute?

The right wing seeks the end of our democracy. I am witnessing the fall of America at the hands of right wing facsism. You could say I'm invested in not seeing my country be destroyed by the right wing.

> Ripley says that one of the keys to getting out of high conflict is to disengage from conflict entrepreneurs. Stop following the conflict entrepreneurs. I would say to start following instead people like Mounk and Ripley and the Fantasy Intellectual Teams category leaders.

The right wing has fully accepted and integrated the conflict entrepreneurs. Nothing I do will end this before the civil war turns hot. No number of non-right-wingers engaging in truth will change the right wings total rejection of truth.

> But I suspect that only a minority of Americans are caught up in this high-conflict dynamic.

Over 74 million stood with a man of sin. While they are a technical minority, that's still going to lead to a hot civil war. Millions and millions repeat the lies of their own free will. I know exactly what the common right winger stands for. Their politicians' corruption, greed, cruelty, selfishness, and deceit.

> The challenge is to keep this minority from taking control of political life.

The right wing is a minority that has controlled the political landscape for decades now. It is too late.

> Ripley discusses ways that we as individuals can escape from high conflict.

The cold civil war is already here, and it is bound to turn hot soon enough. It is too late to ignore the enemies domestic.

> She points out that sometimes an external shock can remind us of our common humanity and shared national interest, provided that our leaders and opinion-shapers take the right approach.

A Coup Attempt was formed by the sitting president to attempt to decapitate the legislature. Now they just say it was either a picnic, antifa, or they cheer the destruction of our legislature as long as their man of sin can rule without democracy.

Should I wait for a full fascist overthrow as the shock?

> First, we need a new threat that reminds us of our common interests.

The right wing has formed this threat already. Anything they want to demonize is "socialism". Morality, ethics, truth, kindness. These have been rejected as "socialist" already. The right wing has something that bands them together tightly already. They have no interest in "coming together" with the rest of America anymore.

> Second, we need leadership—and I would include media leadership—that tamps down the conflict entrepreneurs and instead elevates the status of reasonable people on all sides.

This may be too little, too late. Anytime some leadership "tamps down" the conflict entrepreneurs, there's new ones. Or have you seen OANN or Newsmax?

The entire article bases itself on attempting to find common ground with the right wing, when the right wing has rejected it all already. They've been rejecting any common ground more and more every single year.

The rightwing has *decided* they will either have fascism or a civil war. You don't get to un-decide for them by taking the high ground against their underhandedness anymore. That chance was lost years or decades ago.

Throwaway because we probably cannot have an honest discussion about the approaching hot civil war. Silly academic discussions like this do not change the reality of the lies on the ground. And unless you can convince at least 74 million of this soon, you're already too late.