[qqn]

I should add that the tendency of adopting the hero role ("let bygones be bygones, but we need to get this done") isn't ideal since it leaves a power imbalance in its wake. A more effective response lies in Nonviolent Communication,[0] so saying, "When you say this I feel this because I value this. Would you be willing to do this?" This way emotions are managed and both parties begin exiting the dialogue understanding each other, and on equal footing.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication

[watwut]

And then I tell you that I am not responsible for your feelings, you are. Which is very common thing to say these days. Or I say you that you are oversensitive and emotional.

I agree that "hero" in original framing basically favors status quo.

[qqn]

You're right. In the case of a narcissist or someone looking to argue (or someone very emotionally invested and stirred up), the "broken pop machine" method is better. They try to press your buttons but you don't react, saying things like, "Gee, I can't help you with that," and they eventually disengage.

Applying Karpman's triangle assumes both parties genuinely want to (and can) move forward.

[tomjen3]

Nonviolent communication seems to be reasonably popular here, but I must admit that that quote comes of as extremely condescending and manipulative to me.

[qqn]

I have found it helps assuming kindness and sincerity from the other end. When this works, it works well.

I was reminded of this thought: "No matter how considerate you are, or how much effort you put into avoiding my triggers, the total freedom in the world does not increase until I learn to release the grip they have on me." (https://twitter.com/RichDecibels/status/1197769030880419841)