December 17th, 2024
- my threads on twitter - thread on baby food, state paternalism, lobbying
- > B was saying that it didn't matter what move they ultimately played, that was all the same, but _she needed A to acknowledge that he'd unilaterally changed an agreement, and she needed to be able to trust that A would not do that_.
- > With that, I could imagine another shape behind B's reaction. Some betrayal in her past, where someone else had unilaterally changed an agreement because _they_ thought the consequences were the same, when they were very much not the same to B, and then rejected B's objections as invalid... that this situation was now reminding her of.