A

Acknowledged Impactor [AI] 

(n.) [wellness campaign terminology]

A person or entity recognizing they impact another of relatively less social influence more than they are impacted by the other in a social power difference. Prior to acknowledging such potent influence, the AI is regarded as an Ascribed Impactor.

adversarialism 

(n.) Opposing others largely for the sake of opposition. [Gordon Fellman] See indulgent side-taking and oppo culture.

adversarialist 

(n.) One who opposes others ostensibly to hold them accountable but often to try to subdue them and coerce them to fit one's own interests with little if any regard for their affected inflexible needs. 

See proper adversarialism and toxic adversarialist. See image of both definitions here.

Also see indulgent side-taking and oppo culture. 

anankelogy 

(n.) The disciplined study and understanding of experiencing needs.

Ascribed Impactor [AI] 

(n.) [wellness campaign terminology]

A person or entity identified as likely impacting another person or entity of relatively less social influence more than they are impacted by the other in a social power difference. Once publicly recognizing such potent influence, the AI is regarded as an Acknowledged Impactor.

avoidance culture

(n.) Social norms that privilege evading awareness or engagement of others whom one affects. Instead of being responsive to the affected needs of others, these set of norms rationalize the acceptability of overlooking others in pain. It expects impersonal norms to be enough. See oppo culture.

Avoidance culture can manifest itself in different ways.

• Demonstrating an intent to simplify complex matters into palatable soundbites, to the point of evading uncomfortable details one would prefer to ignore.

• Being dismissive toward the views of others by characterizing a weakness in that view as emblematic of the whole idea, as grounds to not face strong points in that view.

• Investing more focus (consuming limited time and energy) on one point over another, effectively missing what that other point could offer.

• Accepting motivated reasoning to rationalize not investigating further, effectively reinforcing blind spots.

• Easing needs or relieving pain from unresolved exposed needs, while ignoring the likely consequence of perpetuating the problem as those needs persist unresolved, compromising functionality while seeming to fix the problem (which can then be blamed on the individual for not properly applying the avoidant solution).

• A relatively simple conflict requiring discipline and uncomfortable sacrifices to settle gets characterized as too complex to solve, if only to bypass such disciplie and sacrifices. And somefime to preserve the familiarity of the conflict over the fear of the unknown.

• Citing established norms and routine procedures as reason enough not to fully address a problem, preferring not to upset the status quo which likely has elements necessary and best preserved while also including elements to be excised for the sake of resolving needs more effectively.

• Denouncing any attempt to understand all sides to a conflict as "bothsidesism" or "moral equivalency" that avoids identifying and addressing the inflexible needs of one or more sides.

• Heralding one side in a conflict that more effectively conveys its message, or gets it out to a wider audience, to the point of dismissing any helpful critique of any opposing side, regardless of the intent of any of the sides.

Exists as an element of toxic legalism, as complemented by adversarialism.