When the Wings Fight, the Whole Bird Falls

How tribalism, dehumanization, and the need to defeat one another endanger everyone

Imagine a bird whose wings have forgotten that they belong to the same body.

The right wing blames the left for every loss of balance, every change in direction, and every moment of turbulence.

The left wing views the right as an obstacle to progress—something primitive, dangerous, or unnecessary.

Each becomes convinced that the bird would fly better if only the other wing were weakened, silenced, or removed.

So they stop coordinating.

Instead of using their strength to create lift, they pull against one another.

Each wound is celebrated as a victory.

Each sign of weakness proves that the other wing was always inferior.

Neither notices that the entire bird is losing altitude.

Eventually, one wing may succeed in damaging the other.

But neither wing wins.

The bird falls.

This image feels increasingly relevant to our cultural climate.

People are encouraged to understand society through opposing camps: left and right, us and them, enlightened and ignorant, patriots and enemies, good people and irredeemably bad ones.

Disagreement itself is not the problem.

Healthy societies need debate, dissent, competing priorities, moral courage, and people willing to challenge harmful ideas.

Conflict can reveal injustice, correct dangerous assumptions, and help communities make wiser decisions.

A bird’s wings do not need to occupy the same side or perform identical movements.

The danger begins when disagreement becomes dehumanization.

When defeating another group matters more than protecting the shared community, political and cultural conflict becomes something closer to collective self-harm.

People stop asking which ideas, policies, or actions will help human beings live safer and more meaningful lives.

They begin asking which side must dominate—and how thoroughly the other must be humiliated.

Every problem becomes proof of the enemy’s wickedness.

Every mistake committed by our side receives context and grace.

Every mistake committed by their side becomes evidence that the entire group is dangerous.

Understanding is treated as betrayal.

Nuance becomes weakness.

Cruelty becomes acceptable when directed toward the supposedly correct target.

Meanwhile, the problems threatening the whole bird remain.

People still need safe housing, accessible healthcare, stable work, functioning communities, trustworthy institutions, meaningful relationships, and support during crisis.

Illness, poverty, loneliness, environmental danger, disability, violence, and failing systems do not remain politely within ideological boundaries.

A person’s body does not ask for their political identity before becoming sick.

A disaster does not spare people who voted correctly.

An inaccessible system can fail human beings with profoundly different beliefs.

Yet we can become so consumed with assigning blame that we spend the strength needed for flight trying to injure the other wing.

Working together does not mean pretending that every position is equally ethical.

It does not require silence about injustice, compromise with abuse, or superficial unity that protects harmful behavior from accountability.

Some ideas must be challenged.

Some actions require firm opposition.

Some boundaries are necessary for collective safety.

But there is a difference between opposing harm and devoting ourselves to hatred.

We can confront destructive behavior without declaring entire groups of people disposable.

We can insist upon accountability without losing our own humanity.

We can disagree profoundly while remembering that the consequences of how we treat one another will travel through the shared body.

No wing can prove its superiority by destroying the bird that gives it purpose.

If we want society to rise, we will need more than one side defeating another.

We will need the ability to tell the truth, protect human dignity, tolerate complexity, and coordinate around the problems none of us can solve alone.

When people become more committed to destroying one another than addressing what threatens them all, division stops being a disagreement.

It becomes a fall.

The Wings Were Never Supposed to Be Identical

A bird does not fly by having two wings on the same side.

Its wings occupy different positions.

Each experiences the air from a different angle.

Their movements respond to changing conditions, stabilize the body, and help determine direction.

Their difference is not a design flaw.

It is part of what makes flight possible.

Society also contains people with different histories, priorities, temperaments, experiences, and understandings of what creates a good life.

Some emphasize stability, continuity, personal responsibility, and preserving what has proven valuable.

Others emphasize change, collective responsibility, reform, and correcting structures that have caused harm.

These priorities can come into tension.

That tension is not automatically evidence that one side must disappear.

At its healthiest, it can expose blind spots and force people to consider consequences they might otherwise overlook.

Change without reflection can discard valuable knowledge or create unforeseen harm.

Stability without reflection can protect injustice simply because it is familiar.

Individual freedom without responsibility can allow the powerful to ignore how their actions affect others.

Collective responsibility without respect for autonomy can become coercive or controlling.

No perspective contains every truth merely because it recognizes one important truth.

Difference can provide balance

Constructive disagreement can improve collective decisions.

Someone may identify a problem that others have normalized.

Another person may question whether the proposed solution will create additional harm.

One group may recognize an urgent need for change, while another notices practical details, unintended consequences, or knowledge carried from the past.

When people remain committed to a shared purpose, these differences can produce stronger solutions.

The goal is not for everyone to think alike.

A society in which nobody challenges the dominant view may appear peaceful, but that peace can be created through fear, conformity, exclusion, or silence.

Without dissent, harmful systems become harder to correct.

Without questions, confidence can disguise collective error.

A functioning community needs people willing to say:

“Something is wrong.”
“We may be overlooking an important consequence.”
“This approach is harming people.”
“We need more evidence.”
“The old way is no longer working.”
“The new solution may not be as safe or effective as it appears.”
“There may be another path.”

Disagreement can be an act of care when its purpose is to protect the shared body rather than dominate it.

Cooperation does not require ideological sameness or compromise in every dispute.

Different perspectives can contribute to collective wisdom without every position being equally truthful, ethical, or safe.

We will return later to the important distinction between cooperation and false equivalence.

Dissent is different from sabotage

Questioning a group’s direction is not necessarily disloyalty.

A person may criticize a movement, institution, political party, community, or country because they care about what it is becoming.

Blind loyalty protects the group’s image. Healthy loyalty protects its integrity.

If truth is welcome only when it condemns an opponent, truth is not the actual value.

A collective that cannot tolerate internal correction eventually loses the ability to distinguish principled dissent from betrayal.

Different motion, shared direction

The wings do not need to move in perfect unison at every instant; flight involves constant adjustment.

One may rise slightly as the other lowers.

Both respond to changing currents.

What matters is that their movement remains oriented toward sustaining the same living body.

Human cooperation works similarly.

We may never agree upon every destination or route, but we can decide that certain methods of conflict are unacceptable because they destroy the conditions all of us need:

deliberate dehumanization;
political violence;
collective punishment;
celebrating civilian suffering;
knowingly spreading falsehoods;
stripping entire groups of personhood;
excusing abuse because the perpetrator belongs to our side;
treating cruelty as courage.

The wings were never supposed to be identical.

They were supposed to remain different without forgetting that they participate in the same flight.

A society does not need complete agreement to survive.

It needs enough shared commitment that disagreement does not become devotion to the fall.

Tribalism Turns Disagreement into Identity Warfare

A disagreement can remain focused on an idea.

Tribalism makes it about who someone is.

Instead of saying: “I believe this policy is harmful,” people begin saying: “People like you are what is wrong with the world.”

Instead of evaluating a claim by its evidence, they evaluate it by the group associated with it.

The same behavior may be condemned when an opponent does it and excused when it benefits their own side.

The question quietly changes from: is this true, fair, or helpful? to: does this strengthen my tribe and weaken theirs?

Once that shift occurs, solving the original problem becomes less important than protecting the group’s identity and defeating the people outside it.

Belonging becomes tied to opposition

Human beings naturally seek belonging.

Groups can provide identity, purpose, protection, language, history, and the reassurance that we are not alone.

Shared values can help people organize around important needs and accomplish things no individual could achieve independently.

The problem is not belonging to a group.

The problem begins when belonging requires an enemy.

A community may become increasingly organized around what—and whom—it opposes.

Members prove their loyalty through contempt, mockery, outrage, or their willingness to interpret outsiders in the worst possible way.

Eventually, hostility becomes the membership fee.

People who express curiosity about another perspective may be accused of betrayal.

Those who admit uncertainty may be treated as weak.

Anyone who criticizes their own group risks becoming more despised than the external opponent because internal dissent threatens the illusion of absolute righteousness.

This creates pressure to perform certainty even when people privately have doubts.

Identity makes correction feel dangerous

When a belief is merely something we hold, new information can change it.

When the belief becomes part of our identity, correction can feel like annihilation.

Admitting that our group caused harm may seem equivalent to declaring that we are bad people.

Acknowledging that an opponent made a valid point may feel like surrendering to everything they represent.

Changing our mind can threaten relationships, social standing, community, or our understanding of ourselves.

Under those conditions, people may defend claims they no longer fully believe because the social cost of reconsidering them feels too high.

They may:

dismiss uncomfortable evidence without examining it;
move the standard of proof when facts challenge their side;
search only for information that confirms what they already believe;
attack the character of the person presenting the evidence;
reinterpret every correction as persecution;
excuse conduct they would condemn in an opponent;
adopt more extreme positions to demonstrate loyalty.

The goal stops being understanding.

It becomes psychological and social survival within the tribe.

Complexity threatens a simple moral story

Tribalism offers a reassuring narrative:

Our side is good.
Their side is bad.
Our failures are understandable.
Their failures reveal who they truly are.

This story provides certainty in a complicated world; it protects us from confronting contradictions, mixed motives, unintended consequences, and the possibility that people we respect can still cause harm.

But reality rarely divides itself so neatly.

A person can recognize a genuine problem and support a harmful solution.

A movement can begin with a moral purpose and develop destructive practices.

A political opponent can be wrong about one issue and correct about another.

Our own group can contain principled people, opportunists, thoughtful disagreement, misinformation, fear, courage, hypocrisy, and sincere care—sometimes within the same individual.

Nuance does not mean that every perspective is equally valid.

It means that truth is not obligated to flatter our preferred story.

The individual disappears behind the label

Once identity warfare takes over, people are no longer encountered as individuals.

A single label is treated as sufficient knowledge:

conservative
liberal
religious
secular
urban
rural
wealthy
poor
educated
uneducated

The label becomes a container into which motives, beliefs, intelligence, morality, and character are poured without further inquiry.

This allows millions of different human beings to be reduced to a single caricature.

It also makes cruelty easier; we are less likely to empathize with a category than with a person whose history, fear, grief, and hopes we understand.

The individual becomes a symbol of everything the tribe despises.

Their pain no longer belongs to a human being.

It belongs to “the enemy.”

Tribalism eventually turns inward

A movement built around ideological purity cannot remain satisfied with external enemies.

Once obvious outsiders have been rejected, members begin scrutinizing one another for insufficient loyalty.

A poorly phrased question, disagreement over strategy, or failure to display enough outrage may become evidence that someone is secretly aligned with the opposition.

The boundaries of belonging grow narrower.

People learn to hide complexity, repeat approved language, and monitor one another for deviation.

Fear replaces genuine trust.

The wing begins attacking its own feathers.

This is one reason tribalism cannot create lasting safety, even for people who initially feel protected by it.

A community that grants dignity only to those who remain ideologically pure can withdraw that dignity whenever the standard changes.

Belonging becomes conditional upon continued compliance.

We are responsible for more than our faction

Every group will contain people whose behavior contradicts its stated values.

The ethical response is not to protect them because exposing the truth might benefit an opponent.

If we condemn dishonesty, coercion, cruelty, corruption, or abuse only when the other side engages in it, we do not truly oppose those behaviors.

We oppose losing.

Integrity requires standards that survive our own advantage.

That does not mean abandoning the groups, traditions, or causes we value; it means refusing to let loyalty replace conscience.

We can belong without surrendering discernment.

We can support a cause without treating its representatives as infallible.

We can criticize our own side without joining the other.

We can listen to an opponent without endorsing everything they believe.

We can change our minds without losing our humanity.

A functioning wing must remain responsive to the whole bird—not merely to its own desire for dominance.

When identity becomes inseparable from defeating another group, disagreement no longer helps guide the collective.

It becomes a struggle over who deserves to belong to the body at all.

Dehumanization Makes Mutual Destruction Feel Righteous

Before people can justify treating others cruelly, they often change the way they describe them.

A person becomes a category.

The category becomes a threat.

The threat becomes something that must be controlled, punished, expelled, or destroyed.

Opponents are no longer understood as human beings who may be frightened, misinformed, wounded, selfish, sincere, mistaken, or shaped by circumstances we do not fully know.

They become monsters, animals, parasites, invaders, traitors, idiots, vermin, or embodiments of evil.

This language does more than communicate anger.

It removes complexity, individuality, and moral protection.

Once another group is perceived as less than human, behavior that would ordinarily feel unacceptable can begin to feel necessary—even virtuous.

Language prepares us for what comes next

Words shape the moral distance between people.

If someone is described as a neighbor, fellow citizen, parent, child, worker, or human being, their suffering remains recognizable.

If they are described only as an infestation or enemy contaminating the collective, their suffering can be reframed as progress.

The change is subtle at first.

People joke about another group’s pain.

They celebrate when opponents lose jobs, homes, rights, safety, or access to basic needs.

They speak about entire populations as though every individual shares the same motives and deserves the same punishment.

Eventually, cruelty stops appearing cruel because the target has been removed from the circle of people considered worthy of compassion.

The Golden Rule becomes tribal: treat our people as human but treat their people however victory requires.

Moral concern becomes conditional

Blind tribalism does not necessarily eliminate empathy.

It restricts empathy to the in-group.

A person may respond with tenderness when someone from their own community experiences loss while mocking the same suffering when it happens to an opponent.

They may demand context and due process for someone on their side while treating accusation alone as sufficient proof against someone else.

The principle changes according to the target.

Violence is tragic when committed against us and understandable when committed by us.

Censorship is dangerous when our voices are restricted and necessary when their voices are restricted.

Collective punishment is immoral when our group suffers and justified when the other group does.

Misinformation is propaganda when they share it and harmless advocacy when we repeat it.

When standards shift according to affiliation, morality has been replaced by team loyalty.

Dehumanization hides inside respectable language

Not every form of dehumanization sounds openly hateful.

Sometimes it appears in language about efficiency, order, deservingness, or protecting good people from bad ones.

Human beings become:

burdens on the system;
problems to manage;
statistics instead of lives;
obstacles to progress;
acceptable collateral damage;
people whose suffering is unfortunate but necessary;
communities considered too ignorant or dangerous to deserve a voice.

This form of language can feel calm, rational, and administrative while still stripping people of individuality and moral significance.

Dehumanization does not always shout.

Sometimes it produces a spreadsheet explaining why certain lives matter less.

Every injury travels through the same body

The fighting-wings metaphor reveals the ultimate failure of dehumanization.

A wing may believe it is injuring only its opponent, but both wings share the same blood, nervous system, and body; the damage does not remain neatly contained.

When a society normalizes cruelty toward one group, it teaches everyone that human rights can become conditional.

When it accepts lies because they harm the correct target, shared trust deteriorates.

When it celebrates political violence, retaliation becomes more likely.

When it strips opponents of due process, accountability, or basic dignity, those tools can eventually be redirected toward new enemies—including former allies.

The methods we permit do not remain loyal to our intentions.

A society cannot build safety by teaching people that personhood may be withdrawn whenever a group becomes sufficiently unpopular.

The wound spreads through the bird.

Accountability does not require dehumanization

Rejecting dehumanization does not mean pretending harmful behavior is harmless.

People and institutions can cause severe damage.

Some knowingly exploit, abuse, manipulate, terrorize, or oppress others.

Protecting vulnerable people may require firm boundaries, legal consequences, removal from positions of power, or collective resistance.

Human dignity is not immunity from accountability.

The distinction lies in what we are trying to accomplish.

Accountability asks what happened, who was harmed, what protection is needed, which consequences are proportionate, and what must change to prevent recurrence.

Dehumanization asks how the accused can be humiliated, made to suffer, or used to justify punishment of everyone associated with them.

One seeks safety, truth, repair, and changed behavior, while the other turns suffering into evidence of victory.

One seeks safety, truth, repair, and changed behavior.

The other turns suffering into evidence of victory.

We can oppose someone’s actions without claiming they possess no humanity.

We can protect ourselves from dangerous people without imitating their disregard for human life.

Hatred reshapes the person carrying it

Dehumanization harms its target, but it also changes the people who practice it.

When we repeatedly train ourselves to enjoy another person’s suffering, interpret cruelty as strength, and suppress compassion toward the designated enemy, those habits do not always remain confined to political conflict.

Contempt enters families, friendships, workplaces, communities, and the way we treat ourselves.

The heart learns what it repeatedly practices.

A culture of humiliation eventually makes everyone less safe because people come to expect that any mistake, disagreement, or change in group status may place them outside the circle of mercy.

The bird does not become healthier because one wing has learned to hate more effectively.

It becomes less capable of coordinated life.

Refuse the lie that cruelty proves commitment

Tribal cultures may treat compassion toward opponents as weakness.

People may fear that acknowledging another group’s suffering will minimize the harm their own community has experienced or undermine an important cause.

But compassion is not surrender.

Recognizing another person’s humanity does not require agreeing with them, trusting them, reconciling with them, or allowing them to continue causing harm.

It means refusing to let opposition determine the boundaries of our conscience.

A wing cannot save the bird by proving that the other deserves to bleed.

Every injury travels through the same body.

And every time we defend someone’s humanity—even while firmly opposing their behavior—we help preserve the possibility that the collective might still remember how to fly.

The System Rewards Outrage More Than Understanding

Tribal conflict does not grow only because individual people fail to be thoughtful or compassionate.

It also grows because powerful systems benefit from keeping us emotionally activated.

Attention has value.

Fear captures attention.

Anger sustains it.

Humiliation spreads quickly.

Conflict gives people a reason to keep watching, clicking, sharing, commenting, and returning to see what the enemy has done next.

Understanding usually moves more slowly.

It requires context, uncertainty, patience, and the willingness to encounter information that may not produce an immediate emotional reward.

A careful explanation rarely travels as quickly as a shocking accusation.

A thoughtful correction may reach only a fraction of the people who encountered the original outrage.

The environment therefore does not merely reflect division.

It can intensify it.

Outrage makes complicated stories easier to sell

Most social problems involve multiple causes, competing needs, historical context, unintended consequences, and imperfect solutions.

That complexity is difficult to compress into a headline, short video, slogan, or viral post.

A simpler story is more emotionally satisfying: this happened because those people are evil.

It provides an obvious villain, a clear emotional response, and the reassuring belief that everything would improve if the opposing group could be defeated.

This framing encourages media outlets, political organizations, influencers, and ordinary users to highlight the most inflammatory examples.

One person’s cruel statement becomes representative of millions.

The most extreme member of a group is presented as its true face.

Context is removed because context might weaken the emotional impact.

Every event is transformed into additional proof of an already established enemy.

People become more certain while understanding less.

Anger can be useful—and still be exploited

Anger is not inherently irrational or harmful.

It can alert us to injustice, boundary violations, cruelty, corruption, or danger.

It can provide the energy needed to speak, organize, protect someone, or refuse unacceptable conditions.

The problem is not that people become angry.

The problem is that legitimate anger can be captured, prolonged, redirected, and monetized.

A person may enter a conversation because they care about a genuine injustice, but if every new message encourages them to remain continually furious, suspicious, and reactive, their concern can gradually become an identity organized around hostility.

The issue they hoped to solve becomes almost secondary.

Outrage becomes the environment in which they live.

Systems that profit from attention have little incentive to announce when enough information has been provided, when a correction changes the story, or when cooperation produces progress.

Resolution ends the emotional cycle.

An enemy keeps it alive.

Humiliation masquerades as accountability

Public culture increasingly rewards the most devastating response, cruelest joke, sharpest insult, or most satisfying takedown.

This can create the appearance of accountability without producing reflection, repair, or change.

Humiliation may silence someone temporarily, but it can also deepen defensiveness and make their group feel further persecuted.

Allies rally around the person not because the original behavior was acceptable, but because the public attack confirms their belief that the opposing side is cruel.

The factions become more entrenched.

Each side uses the other’s behavior to justify its own.

Accountability focuses on truth, protection, consequences, and changed conduct.

Humiliation focuses on spectacle.

One asks what will make the situation safer.

The other asks what will make the crowd cheer.

Constant reaction weakens discernment

When people remain in a continual state of alarm, they have less space to investigate, reflect, or recognize manipulation.

Urgency pressures us to respond before verifying.

We may share a claim because it confirms our fears, react to a cropped clip without seeking context, or accept an accusation because it targets someone we already distrust.

By the time corrections appear, the emotional conclusion may already feel true.

This does not mean we should distrust everything or remain neutral until perfect information becomes available.

Some events require timely action, but urgency should not become a permanent mental climate.

A society that never pauses becomes easier to direct.

Notice who benefits from the fight

When outrage rises, it can help to ask:

Who gains attention, money, influence, or power from this conflict?
Am I being shown a representative pattern or the most inflammatory example?
What context is missing?
Is this content helping anyone understand or solve the problem?
Would I find the source credible if it criticized my own side?
Am I being asked to protect someone—or merely despise someone?
What feeling is this trying to produce in me?
What action, if any, would genuinely help?

These questions do not require emotional detachment from human suffering; they protect concern from being manipulated into indiscriminate hatred.

Refuse to become fuel

We cannot individually redesign every political, media, or technological system that rewards division, but we can decide what we help circulate.

We can pause before sharing inflammatory claims.

We can seek fuller context.

We can avoid treating the worst individual as a symbol of an entire population.

We can decline to reward humiliation with attention.

We can support voices that explain rather than merely provoke.

Most importantly, we can protect our own minds from becoming permanent battlegrounds.

A society continually fed reasons to despise itself should not be surprised when it loses the ability to cooperate.

The wings may believe they are choosing the fight.

But sometimes the fight is also choosing—and profiting from—them.

Shared Problems Do Not Respect Tribal Boundaries

While the wings fight over which one deserves control, the bird continues losing altitude.

Housing becomes less affordable.

Healthcare remains inaccessible.

Infrastructure deteriorates.

People struggle to find stable work, safe communities, adequate disability support, trustworthy information, and meaningful connection.

Families experience poverty, illness, violence, grief, isolation, and uncertainty regardless of which political label appears beside their names.

Shared problems do not pause while we decide whom to blame.

Nor do they remain contained within the groups we believe deserve their consequences.

Human vulnerability is not partisan

A body does not ask how someone voted before becoming sick.

A storm does not alter its path according to ideology.

A workplace closure does not spare one political faction.

A disabled person does not stop needing accessible housing because a cultural conflict is receiving more attention.

People across political, religious, geographic, and cultural divides need:

food and clean water;
safe and stable housing;
accessible healthcare;
reliable transportation and infrastructure;
education;
protection from violence and exploitation;
meaningful work and economic security;
community, belonging, and care;
support during disability, illness, aging, and crisis;
a livable environment for future generations.

People may disagree deeply about why these needs remain unmet or which solutions would address them most effectively.

But disagreement about the route does not make the need unreal.

The consequences eventually spread

Tribal thinking encourages people to celebrate when hardship reaches the opposing group.

If a region associated with different beliefs experiences economic decline, disaster, addiction, violence, or institutional failure, others may treat its suffering as deserved.

But collective systems are interconnected.

A public-health failure can spread across borders.

Economic instability affects supply chains, employment, and migration.

Environmental damage does not remain within political districts.

Failing education systems affect future workplaces and communities.

When people cannot access healthcare, housing, or food, the consequences reach hospitals, schools, families, neighborhoods, and public budgets.

Neglecting part of the body does not protect the rest of it.

The wound may begin in one place, but the bloodstream connects everything.

Symbolic warfare consumes practical energy

Cultural conflicts can concern real values and genuine harm; they should not all be dismissed as distractions.

But public attention is finite.

When every issue becomes an opportunity to humiliate the opposing tribe, enormous amounts of time, money, emotion, and political energy are spent maintaining the conflict rather than improving daily life.

Leaders may find it easier to provoke outrage than to solve complicated problems.

A villain is simpler to offer than affordable housing.

A slogan is easier than reforming an inaccessible healthcare system.

A viral confrontation is more immediately rewarding than years of careful community development.

People may feel politically engaged because they are continually reacting, yet remain unable to identify what materially improved for anyone.

The wings become exhausted from fighting while the body remains hungry.

Tribal narratives encourage us to believe that the other side’s concerns are entirely foreign or malicious.

But beneath different language, people may be responding to overlapping fears:

losing financial stability;
being unable to support their families;
having no control over decisions affecting their lives;
being ignored by powerful institutions;
feeling culturally displaced or socially abandoned;
being unable to access safety, healthcare, education, or opportunity;
fearing that their children will inherit a worse future;
believing that nobody in power sees them as fully human.

These fears do not automatically make every conclusion or proposed solution valid.

Pain can be manipulated into prejudice, conspiracy, scapegoating, or support for harmful policies.

But understanding the pain beneath a position can reveal possibilities that contempt cannot.

Two groups may be taught to blame one another for suffering produced by systems that fail them both.

Shared goals can exist beneath different explanations

People do not need complete ideological agreement to cooperate on concrete needs.

Communities can work together on accessibility, food security, disaster response, youth programs, safer infrastructure, environmental protection, and support for people experiencing hardship.

Practical cooperation does not erase deeper disagreements.

It reminds people that opponents are also neighbors, parents, workers, artists, caregivers, and members of the same community.

Cooperation begins with a shared reality

Collective problem-solving becomes impossible when groups cannot agree that evidence, consequences, and human suffering matter.

People may disagree about values and policy while still committing to basic questions:

What is happening?
Who is affected?
What evidence do we have?
What has already been tried?
What unintended consequences might follow?
What would improvement look like?
How will we know whether a solution is working?
Who has been excluded from the conversation?

This requires more than demanding that everyone accept one faction’s narrative; it requires information people can examine, institutions capable of earning trust, and humility when reality contradicts expectations.

No wing can navigate if each insists upon inventing its own sky.

We can blame one another—or protect the bird

Responsibility matters.

Some people and institutions possess greater power and cause greater harm.

Refusing blind tribalism does not require pretending that responsibility is evenly distributed.

But blame becomes sterile when it offers no path toward protection, repair, or change.

The question cannot end with: whose fault is this?

It must continue:

What will keep more people from being harmed?
What can be repaired?
Who must be held accountable?
Where can cooperation begin?

We can spend all our strength proving that another group deserves the fall.

Or we can recognize that gravity will not distinguish between the wings when the entire bird reaches the ground.

Winning Is Meaningless If the Victory Destroys the Future

Tribal conflict teaches people to interpret every loss suffered by the opposing side as a gain for their own.

An opponent is silenced, humiliated, denied, defeated, or removed from power, and the tribe celebrates.

The immediate result feels like proof that its side is advancing.

But not every victory moves the collective forward.

Some victories weaken the institutions everyone may later need.

Some normalize methods that will eventually be used against the people who first supported them. Some deepen resentment until retaliation becomes inevitable.

Others leave communities so distrustful and fractured that cooperation becomes impossible even during genuine emergencies.

A wing may win a battle against the other while destroying the conditions required for flight.

Methods outlive the moment

When people believe the stakes are high enough, they may justify dishonesty, dehumanization, censorship, political violence, collective punishment, or the abandonment of due process.

They tell themselves:

This situation is exceptional.
Our opponents are uniquely dangerous.
We will use these methods only long enough to defeat them.

But tools of domination rarely disappear after one faction has used them.

A power granted to punish today’s enemy can be inherited by tomorrow’s opponent.

A lie accepted because it advances our cause weakens the expectation that truth should govern public life.

Violence celebrated when it targets the other side creates permission for retaliation.

If a principle survives only when our group lacks power, it is not functioning as a principle.

Before endorsing a destructive method, we should ask whether we would consider it legitimate in the hands of people we fear.

If the answer is no, winning does not make it safe.

Trust is easier to destroy than rebuild

Society depends upon forms of trust that are often invisible until they disappear.

People must possess at least some confidence that:

evidence can influence decisions;
rules will not change entirely according to who holds power;
disagreement will not automatically result in persecution;
institutions can acknowledge error;
opponents will not celebrate every form of suffering;
promises and agreements retain meaning;
cooperation will not be used as an opportunity for betrayal.

Blind tribalism corrodes this trust.

Every act of bad faith becomes evidence that future cooperation is foolish.

Each group prepares for the worst because it expects the other to do the same.

Defensive behavior then appears aggressive, producing further escalation.

Soon everyone believes they are merely responding to the other side’s hostility.

The wings pull harder in opposite directions, each insisting that the other started it.

Children inherit the culture we normalize

Children observe whether adults condemn cruelty consistently or only when it targets the favored group.

They learn whether apology demonstrates integrity or weakness, whether disagreement permits humiliation, and whether loyalty matters more than truth.

A generation raised inside continual contempt inherits fractured communities, weakened trust, normalized political violence, and fewer examples of respectful disagreement.

What we repeatedly practice becomes part of their social inheritance.

Punitive policies rarely remain neatly targeted

A policy designed primarily to make an opposing group suffer may reach people far beyond its intended target.

Families, children, disabled people, workers, local communities, and people who had little influence over the original conflict may absorb the consequences.

Collective punishment relies upon the idea that individuals deserve harm because of the group with which they are associated; it replaces responsibility for specific actions with guilt by category.

That logic cannot coexist comfortably with individual dignity.

Even when a policy begins with a real need for accountability, it should still be judged by its likely consequences:

Who will actually be harmed?
Does the response protect anyone?
Is the consequence proportionate?
Does it address the behavior or merely the identity?
What precedent does it establish?
What will remain after the emotional satisfaction fades?

Punishment can create the appearance of strength while leaving the underlying problem untouched.

Retaliation produces a shrinking future

When each side understands justice primarily as making the other suffer, every injury demands another response.

The conflict becomes self-sustaining:

They harmed us, so our cruelty is justified.
They responded cruelly, proving our original hatred was correct.

Each faction presents its own behavior as necessary defense and the other’s behavior as evidence of inherent evil.

The past accumulates faster than repair.

Eventually, people cannot imagine a future together because their identities depend upon never releasing the conflict.

Forgiveness is not always appropriate, and reconciliation cannot occur without truth, accountability, protection, and changed behavior, but a society still needs ways to interrupt cycles of retaliation.

Otherwise, each generation receives an expanding list of reasons to continue the fight.

Ask what remains after the victory

A meaningful victory should create something worth inheriting.

It should make people safer, reduce suffering, protect dignity, strengthen accountability, expand truthful understanding, or improve the collective capacity to face future challenges.

If a victory leaves behind:

normalized cruelty;
collapsing trust;
weakened rights;
frightened communities;
corrupt institutions;
celebrated dishonesty;
endless retaliation;
and children trained to despise one another,

then what exactly was won?

The question is not whether one side gained temporary power.

It is whether the shared future became more livable.

No wing escapes the fall

A bird cannot divide the consequences of its collapse according to which wing was morally correct.

When the body hits the ground, both wings arrive with it.

Likewise, the destruction of shared trust, institutions, truth, safety, and cooperation eventually reaches beyond the original target.

People who believed they were protected by group membership may discover that the boundaries of belonging have shifted—or that the system they weakened can no longer protect them either.

Victory becomes meaningless when there is no healthy collective left in which to enjoy it.

The purpose of moral and political action should not be merely to defeat an enemy.

It should be to protect life, reduce harm, establish justice, and help create a future in which human beings can still live together.

Anything less may win the moment while surrendering everything that comes afterward.

Cooperation Is Not Silence, Surrender, or False Equivalence

Calls for unity can sound beautiful.

They can also be used to pressure harmed people into silence, avoid accountability, or preserve an unjust status quo.

Someone names abuse, discrimination, corruption, or systemic harm, and the response becomes:

Why are you creating division?
Why can’t everyone just get along?
Both sides need to compromise.
We should focus on what unites us.

But a wound does not disappear because acknowledging it makes the body uncomfortable.

Peace that depends upon silence is not cooperation; it is suppression.

Not every conflict has equal sides

Rejecting tribal hatred does not require pretending that every claim is equally truthful, every action equally harmful, or every group equally responsible.

Sometimes one person or institution possesses substantially more power.

Sometimes one side is protecting its safety while another is trying to remove it.

Sometimes a disagreement concerns not merely preferences or methods, but whether certain people deserve rights, dignity, freedom, or protection.

In those situations, describing the conflict as symmetrical can conceal reality.

If one person causes harm and another names it, both are not automatically “contributing equally to the conflict.”

If a vulnerable group resists mistreatment, their resistance is not necessarily equivalent to the mistreatment itself.

Balance is not achieved by placing truth and falsehood, abuse and self-protection, or domination and survival at equal distances from an imaginary center.

Fairness requires examining evidence, power, behavior, and consequences—not merely counting how many sides are present.

The midpoint is not always moral

Compromise can be valuable when people hold legitimate but competing needs.

It becomes dangerous when splitting the difference preserves part of an injustice.

The midpoint between full personhood and denied personhood is not justice.

The midpoint between safety and abuse is not a healthy relationship.

The midpoint between truth and deliberate deception is not wisdom.

The midpoint between accessibility and exclusion may still leave someone unable to participate.

Cooperation does not mean selecting the mathematical center between every position; it means seeking solutions that respect reality, human dignity, and the people who will live with the outcome.

Sometimes that requires negotiation.

Sometimes it requires a firm boundary.

Sometimes it requires saying that a proposed compromise asks the people carrying the greatest harm to absorb even more of it.

Truth-telling is not the source of the division it reveals

Dysfunctional groups often blame the person who names a problem for disrupting the peace.

The issue may have existed for years, but as long as nobody spoke about it, the group could pretend everything was fine.

Once someone brings the harm into view, discomfort increases—and the truth-teller becomes associated with that discomfort.

But identifying a fracture does not create it.

Turning on the light does not make the room messy; it reveals what was already there.

A society cannot cooperate honestly by demanding that marginalized, harmed, or dissenting people conceal their experiences to preserve the comfort of the majority.

Real unity must be able to hear:

This system is hurting us.
This policy is unsafe.
This behavior is unacceptable.
This version of peace requires our silence.

A collective that punishes truth-telling does not become less divided.

It becomes less honest about the division.

Accountability is part of cooperation

Cooperation is sometimes confused with being pleasant, agreeable, or endlessly accommodating.

But healthy cooperation requires standards.

People need to know that dishonesty, violence, exploitation, abuse, and corruption will be addressed rather than excused for the sake of appearances.

Without accountability, calls for unity can become invitations for harmful behavior to continue without consequence.

Accountability asks:

What happened?
Who was harmed?
What protection is needed now?
Who held power?
What responsibility belongs to whom?
What must change?
What would meaningful repair require?
How can recurrence be prevented?

These questions may create discomfort.

Discomfort is not the same as division.

Sometimes accountability is precisely what makes future cooperation possible because it restores enough safety and trust for people to participate again.

Boundaries can protect the shared body

A bird needs coordination, but it also needs signals that prevent injury.

Likewise, communities need boundaries around behavior that threatens collective life.

A boundary might mean:

refusing to normalize dehumanizing language;
removing someone from power after serious misconduct;
declining to cooperate with abusive demands;
establishing consequences for corruption or violence;
protecting vulnerable people from retaliation;
refusing invitations to spread known falsehoods;
ending a conversation that has become threatening or degrading.

These actions are not necessarily evidence of hatred.

A boundary can recognize someone’s humanity while limiting their ability to cause harm.

We can say:

You remain a person.
This behavior is still unacceptable.
Your dignity does not require our continued exposure to danger.

That is different from treating punishment or suffering as the goal.

Understanding is not endorsement

Tribalism often discourages people from trying to understand opponents because understanding is mistaken for agreement.

But we cannot respond wisely to beliefs, fears, or harmful movements we refuse to comprehend.

Understanding asks:

What need or fear is being activated?
What history shaped this belief?
What evidence does the person trust?
Who benefits from this interpretation?
What part of the concern is legitimate?
Where does the reasoning become harmful or inaccurate?
What intervention might reduce rather than deepen the danger?

We can answer these questions without endorsing the conclusion.

Understanding may strengthen opposition by helping us address the real source of a problem rather than fighting only its most visible expression.

Curiosity does not require naivety.

Compassion does not require trust.

Dialogue does not require unlimited access.

Unity must be built around something worthy

“Unity” has no inherent moral value if it means uniting around domination, exclusion, lies, or cruelty.

The question is not simply whether people are together.

It is what they are building together.

Healthy cooperation should be oriented toward principles such as:

protecting human dignity;
reducing preventable suffering;
respecting truth and evidence;
preserving meaningful rights and freedoms;
holding power accountable;
allowing dissent;
protecting people from violence and exploitation;
creating conditions in which different people can participate.

A shared purpose does not eliminate disagreement about methods.

It gives disagreement a boundary: the conflict cannot be allowed to destroy the people and conditions the collective exists to serve.

We can oppose harm without becoming devoted to hatred

This is the essential distinction.

We do not have to remain neutral when someone is being harmed.

We do not have to pretend every position deserves equal acceptance.

We do not have to reconcile with people who remain unsafe.

We do not have to trade truth for a shallow performance of peace.

But we can resist wrongdoing without training ourselves to enjoy another person’s suffering.

We can establish consequences without declaring whole groups irredeemable.

We can protect the vulnerable without allowing hatred to become our identity.

Rejecting tribalism does not mean standing in the middle of every conflict.

It means refusing to let opposition determine the boundaries of our humanity.

Cooperation without truth becomes denial.

Truth without concern for humanity can become another weapon.

A society capable of flight needs both: enough honesty to confront what is breaking the body and enough compassion to resist becoming what it opposes.

What Working Together Actually Requires

Cooperation is often described as though people simply need to become nicer, stop arguing, and agree to meet in the middle.

Real cooperation is more demanding.

It asks people to remain in contact with truth, complexity, accountability, and one another’s humanity at the same time.

It requires the ability to disagree without turning every conflict into a contest over who deserves to exist.

This does not happen through good intentions alone.

It requires practices that interrupt tribalism before it becomes collective destruction.

Separate people from positions

A person is larger than one opinion, political affiliation, vote, mistake, or statement.

This does not mean ideas are harmless.

Beliefs shape behavior, policies, institutions, and lives.

Dangerous ideas should be challenged clearly.

But when a person is reduced entirely to a position, curiosity becomes impossible.

We stop asking what they actually believe, how they arrived there, which parts of the ideology they accept, or whether their understanding could change.

We may also become incapable of recognizing anything they say as true because acknowledging one valid point feels like surrendering to their entire worldview.

A healthier approach says:

This claim is false.
This behavior caused harm.
This policy is dangerous.
This person remains more complex than the position I am opposing.

Precision strengthens accountability.

Dehumanization weakens it by replacing specific criticism with total condemnation.

Refuse caricatures

Tribal conflict depends upon presenting opponents in their most absurd, frightening, or hateful form.

Before reacting, we can ask:

Is this an accurate description of what most people in the group believe?
Am I responding to someone’s actual words or an interpretation designed to provoke me?
Is the example representative—or merely extreme?
Have important qualifications been removed?
Would the person recognize their own position in the way it is being described?

Rejecting caricatures does not require denying the presence of extremism.

It means refusing to treat the most inflammatory example as a complete description of millions of people.

If our argument works only against a distorted version of someone’s beliefs, we have not truly answered them.

Remain curious without becoming naïve

Curiosity is not blind trust.

We can seek to understand why someone believes something while remaining alert to manipulation, dishonesty, coercion, or danger.

We can listen without promising agreement.

We can enter dialogue while preserving boundaries.

Useful curiosity asks:

What problem does this person believe they are solving?
What are they afraid will happen?
Which experiences shaped their view?
What information do they trust?
What value are they trying to protect?
What evidence might they be missing?
Where does a legitimate concern become prejudice, misinformation, or harm?

Understanding the emotional or historical source of a belief does not make the belief correct.

It gives us a clearer picture of what we are actually addressing.

Apply principles consistently

One of the strongest safeguards against tribalism is maintaining standards that do not change according to affiliation.

If lying is wrong, it remains wrong when our side benefits.

If corruption is dangerous, it remains dangerous when committed by a leader we support.

If dehumanizing language is unacceptable, it does not become courageous when directed at people we dislike.

If due process matters, it cannot belong only to those we presume innocent.

If violence against civilians is wrong, the identity of the victims should not determine our concern.

Consistency does not require ignoring differences in context, power, intention, or consequence.

Those distinctions matter.

It means we do not abandon our values merely because doing so creates an advantage.

Integrity is what remains after tribal loyalty has made hypocrisy convenient.

Build around concrete shared goals

Abstract calls for unity often fail because people do not trust one another enough to begin with broad ideological agreement.

Practical cooperation can start smaller.

People who disagree about national politics may still work together to:

make a building accessible;
support a food pantry;
protect a local water source;
create safer roads;
help families after a disaster;
establish community art or youth programs;
reduce isolation among older adults;
connect residents with housing and healthcare resources;
strengthen emergency preparedness;
keep usable materials out of landfills.

These projects do not erase deeper disagreements; they create evidence that difference does not always prevent shared work.

When people encounter one another only through political stereotypes, the other side remains an abstraction.

Working together on a concrete need can restore dimensions that the label concealed.

A person becomes a neighbor, collaborator, caregiver, artist, parent, volunteer, or fellow human being again.

Protect the right to dissent

Healthy groups need internal disagreement.

Without it, errors become harder to correct and harmful behavior becomes easier to excuse.

People learn to remain silent because they fear that questioning the group will be interpreted as supporting its enemies.

Working together requires environments where someone can say:

“I think we are wrong.”
“Our methods contradict our values.”
“This decision is hurting people.”
“The evidence has changed.”
“We should reconsider.”
“I support the larger goal, but I cannot support this action.”

Dissent should be evaluated according to its substance—not treated automatically as betrayal.

A wing capable of sensing imbalance protects the bird by responding to it.

Listen to the people carrying the consequences

Public debates often center the voices with the greatest platforms rather than the people most affected by the decision.

Cooperation requires asking:

Who will live with this policy?
Who has direct experience of the problem?
Whose needs are being interpreted by someone else?
Who is absent because participation is inaccessible?
Who possesses power, and who carries the risk?
What accommodations would allow more people to contribute?

Listening to lived experience does not mean that one person’s account answers every policy question.

It means decisions should not be made entirely about people without meaningful participation from them.

A collective cannot claim to protect the body while ignoring the parts experiencing the pain.

Practice repair

Conflict will happen even among people committed to working together.

Someone will misunderstand, become defensive, make an assumption, speak carelessly, or cause harm they did not intend.

Cooperation depends less upon avoiding every rupture than upon knowing how to respond afterward.

Repair may involve:

acknowledging what happened;
listening without immediately defending intention;
apologizing specifically;
correcting misinformation;
changing behavior;
replacing what was damaged when possible;
accepting appropriate consequences;
rebuilding trust over time rather than demanding immediate forgiveness.

A group that cannot repair must continually replace relationships, members, and institutions after every conflict.

A group that treats apology as weakness leaves people with little incentive to acknowledge mistakes.

Repair allows accountability and belonging to coexist.

Cooperation also requires resisting media and platforms that convert every conflict into profitable outrage; before amplifying inflammatory content, we can ask whether it protects anyone, clarifies reality, or merely provides another reason to despise people.

Remember the shared body

Working together does not require affection between every group or reconciliation where safety and accountability remain absent.

It requires a minimum commitment to the conditions that allow collective life:

truth matters;
dignity is not reserved for allies;
power requires accountability;
disagreement does not justify cruelty;
no group is infallible;
suffering does not become good because it reaches an opponent;
the future belongs to more people than those currently holding power.

These principles do not resolve every conflict.

They determine whether conflict remains compatible with shared survival.

The wings do not need to become identical.

They need to stop mistaking the destruction of one another for flight.

A Practical “Fighting Wings” Check-In

Tribalism is easiest to recognize in other people.

We notice when opponents excuse hypocrisy, spread misinformation, stereotype entire groups, or celebrate suffering.

It is much harder to recognize the same tendencies when they appear inside causes, communities, or identities we value.

None of us is completely immune.

Human beings naturally seek information that confirms existing beliefs, extend greater grace to people we identify with, and become defensive when something important to our identity is challenged.

The goal is not to achieve perfect neutrality or become detached from every conviction.

It is to remain capable of examining what our convictions are asking us to become.

Before reacting to political or cultural conflict, it may help to pause and ask:

Am I responding to what was actually said?

Have I encountered the complete statement, policy, event, or source?

Or am I reacting to a cropped clip, inflammatory headline, secondhand interpretation, or summary created by someone who benefits from my outrage?

Context does not automatically excuse harmful behavior. It helps ensure that our judgment addresses what genuinely happened.

Am I treating one person as representative of an entire group?

Every large group contains thoughtful people, extremists, opportunists, hypocrites, compassionate members, misinformed members, and people whose beliefs are still changing.

Would I consider it fair if the worst person associated with one of my identities were used to define me?

Would I excuse this behavior if my side did it?

If the affiliation changed but the behavior remained the same, would I still call it dishonest, cruel, corrupt, coercive, or dangerous?

If our moral judgment reverses entirely according to who benefits, group loyalty may have replaced principle.

Am I trying to solve a problem—or punish an enemy?

What outcome do I actually want?

Greater safety? Truth? Accountability? Changed behavior? Repair? Protection for vulnerable people?

Or do I primarily want the opposing group to feel humiliated, frightened, silenced, or defeated?

A desire for justice can coexist with anger, but when suffering itself becomes the goal, justice has been replaced by revenge.

Does my language preserve anyone’s humanity?

Am I criticizing a specific action, belief, policy, or institution?

Or am I describing a whole category of people as animals, parasites, monsters, contamination, or lives unworthy of concern?

We can name dangerous behavior without claiming that every person connected to it has forfeited personhood.

Who benefits from keeping me furious?

Who gains attention, influence, money, loyalty, or power when I remain continually afraid and angry?

Is someone providing useful information and a meaningful course of action—or repeatedly activating outrage without moving toward any solution?

What information might be missing?

Have people directly affected by the issue been heard?

What historical, material, legal, cultural, or disability-related context may have been excluded?

Is the available evidence sufficient for the certainty being demanded?

Uncertainty does not always mean inaction. It means remaining willing to revise our understanding when better information appears.

Can I understand without endorsing?

Can I ask what fear, value, need, history, or experience shaped another person’s belief without treating that understanding as agreement?

Understanding why something is happening may help us respond more effectively—even when the belief or behavior still requires firm opposition.

Is this a disagreement, a genuine danger, or both?

Not every conflict requires the same response.

Some disagreements can be addressed through dialogue and cooperation.

Some involve active threats, abuse, or attempts to remove another group’s rights and safety.

Others contain legitimate concerns expressed through harmful conclusions.

Discernment helps us avoid treating every disagreement as war—or every danger as merely a difference of opinion.

What will this “victory” leave behind?

If my preferred side wins through this method, what precedent will be established?

Will the result strengthen truth, dignity, safety, rights, accountability, and the capacity to cooperate?

Or will it normalize tools that can later be used against other people—including us?

Is there a shared goal from which cooperation could begin?

Even when larger agreement is impossible, is there one concrete need people might address together?

Could cooperation begin around housing, healthcare, accessibility, disaster response, education, neighborhood safety, environmental protection, or another shared concern?

A small area of common action does not erase moral disagreement; it may keep disagreement from consuming every part of collective life.

Am I helping the bird fly—or helping tear off a wing?

This does not mean asking whether we have upset someone, challenged power, or created necessary discomfort.

Truth-telling can disturb false peace.

Accountability can feel divisive to people protected by the status quo.

Boundaries can anger those who benefited from their absence.

The deeper question is whether our action is oriented toward protection, truth, repair, and a more livable future—or toward domination and collective punishment.

Are we confronting harm in order to reduce it?

Or are we becoming attached to the fight itself?

Reflection Without Self-Condemnation

These questions are not a purity test.

If we recognize tribalism, hypocrisy, or dehumanization in our own behavior, the answer is not to declare ourselves terrible people.

Shame can make us more defensive and less willing to change.

The purpose is to recover choice.

We can pause before sharing the post.

We can correct something we repeated inaccurately.

We can refuse a cruel joke aimed at an opponent.

We can acknowledge that someone outside our group made a valid point.

We can challenge wrongdoing within our own side.

We can replace a caricature with a more accurate description.

We can apologize when our words treated people as less than human.

Each action may seem small compared with the scale of cultural division.

But the collective climate is partly created through millions of repeated choices about what we reward, excuse, amplify, and become.

The bird does not change direction through one movement alone.

Flight is built through continual correction.

Flight Requires More Than Victory

A bird cannot fly by declaring one wing morally victorious over the other.

It flies because different parts remain coordinated around the survival and direction of the whole body.

Human society is more complicated than any single metaphor.

Political conflicts do not always contain equal power, equal truth, or equal harm.

Cooperation cannot mean silencing people who name injustice, compromising away someone’s humanity, or demanding reconciliation while danger continues.

But no pursuit of justice is strengthened by abandoning truth, celebrating civilian suffering, excusing cruelty within our own group, or treating entire categories of people as disposable.

We are responsible not only for what we oppose, but for what opposing it is teaching us to become.

Are we building a future in which people can live with greater dignity, safety, freedom, and accountability?

Or are we becoming so attached to defeating one another that the shared future no longer matters?

The right wing cannot save the bird by destroying the left.

The left wing cannot save it by destroying the right.

Neither wing can create flight through domination alone.

We do not need to agree about every destination, danger, or direction.

We do need enough shared commitment to truth, human dignity, and collective survival that disagreement does not become devotion to the fall.

The problems before us are larger than any one faction.

Housing, healthcare, disability access, economic insecurity, violence, loneliness, environmental instability, and weakened trust will not be solved by teaching people to despise one another more effectively.

They will require courage without cruelty.

Accountability without dehumanization.

Conviction without intellectual captivity.

Difference without disposability.

And cooperation that does not demand silence from those carrying the greatest harm.

Perhaps that is the choice before us.

We can continue using our strength to tear at the other wing, interpreting every wound as evidence that our side is winning.

Or we can remember that we are not enemies suspended in separate skies.

We are parts of the same wounded bird.

And if we still hope to rise, we will have to stop mistaking mutual destruction for flight.

Want even more content about creativity and art?

Be sure to check out all of our creative chronicles!

If you'd like to see examples of my work, you can find some of my art and creations at Redbubble and Gumroad!

Looking to learn more about my recent journey?

Check out some of these articles:

-Hidden Gems for St. Louis Artists

-Hidden Gems for Autistic & Neurodivergent Adults

-Food Resources in St. Louis

-Learning What Love Was Supposed to Feel Like

-I Wasn't Broken--I'm Burned Out

-What Chronic Autistic Burnout Actually Feels Like

-One Year Since I Chose Life

-Building a Life from What Remains