Mediation Scale: Where are you?

[Little-Acorn]

You are assuming that such solutions exist, and are merely waiting to be discovered by sufficient searching and analysis.

Because you are assuming that both parties, in the final analysis, want the same thing.

You assume wrongly, on both counts.

Can you pick some SAMPLE issues of things you feel do not have a solution,
and I can give you EXAMPLES of some options I would recommend joint teams to
consider.

I have already given two:

1.) The conflict between the goals of conservative government and modern-liberal government; and
2.) The conflict between the goals of bank guards and bank robbers.

Pick one. I'm game.

Well?

.

 

[emilynghiem]

I hope you'll reply anyway, and explain where you ARE coming from.
That will help me revise the descriptions to be more clear and user friendly!

Thanks [MENTION=27234]natstew[/MENTION] please feel free to post better descriptions YOU would use!
that is the point.

I refuse to take part in a skewed and screwed poll

Hi natstew

1. How would you fix it so it is not so skewed?
2. Note: there are no wrong answers. this is like asking what someone's
natural denomination is. Or like asking: Are you male or female; can you communicate
freely with people of either gender or both? etc.

Whatever you are closest to in description,
that tells me what kind of team support you would need
to participate equally in discussions and decision making to prevent censorship or exclusion of dissenting input.

People like PMH or LA are clearly not compatible directly and get nowhere
communicating if left to themselves. They would argue about defending or attacking, and their points would be lost.

In order to communicate SPECIFIC points or objections,
other people (in the C or M ranges) might have to step in and help
get the information out of these other people in order to contribute those points so these are REPRESENTED.

Otherwise, we might NEVER hear what these people's objections or issues are,
if they are too busy yelling at the opponents doing the same back and forth.
We'd only hear noise and not the content that they are trying to defend.

So this is just to assess who is comfortable in what range,
and to work WITHIN those parameters to try to communicate ideas REGARDLESS.
KNOWING that we do not get along, cannot stand or respect some groups or ideas at all.
how do we prevent that from blocking information needed to make inclusive decisions?

This is NOT TO JUDGE people for being HONEST that we can or cannot communicate
with certain other groups.

it is to ASSESS where we otherwise would run into blocks or deadlocks.
So this ends up CENSORING our ideas and information from getting heard and included EQUALLY.

How can we FIX this problem?
Why not start by identifying where are LIMITS are as to what we can or cannot
tolerate, where we can or cannot communicate with "certain people"

And just be FU HONEST about it, and manage with what we've got to deal with.
This is reality. We are a diverse nation and have to manage people with different views and limits.
Conflict or rejection is NOT an excuse to deny people equal representation and protection of the laws.

I hope you'll reply anyway, and explain where you ARE coming from.
That will help me revise the descriptions to be more clear and user friendly!

Thanks natstew please feel free to post better descriptions YOU would use!
that is the whole point -- how to include input without running into these walls

 

[Little-Acorn]

People like PMH or LA are clearly not compatible directly and get nowhere
communicating if left to themselves. They would argue about defending or attacking.

You did notice, didn't you, that I never mentioned defending or attacking?

Back to the subject:
You offered to take an example of a disagreement or conflict that I thought did not have a solution, and show how your principles would help solve it. I supplied two.

How's it coming?

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi [MENTION=3254]Little-Acorn[/MENTION]: I was going to start with some preface points but I see you have answered specifically, too.

A. I should have said that once you state you "do not want robber/free-load type people or groups imposing on or taking from those who are financially stable and providing for themselves and others"
then THAT PRINCIPLE is already given as a requirement for policies to meet. That is YOUR BELIEF and it is already protected by law, by the First and Fourteenth Amendment from discrimination or exclusion.
B. If you do not trust me or other people moderating in the group to PROTECT this principle as a GIVEN, then the point is to bring someone into the process you DO TRUST to defend and communicate this if you cannot talk to others in the group. So either way you are represented equally as anyone else without fear of being oppressed, overruled, cut out or otherwise "not protected equally."
[I also believe this is necessary to defend the right of security, to assemble peaceably and to petition for redress of grievances to be ENSURED that the process is SAFE and INCLUSIVE of your beliefs equally. So it is part of other Constitutional rights under the Bill of Rights, and necessary to protect equally for all persons as inalienable]
C. So once the parameters or team/group is set up where you TRUST that it is SAFE, and you will NOT get railroaded, cut out, or otherwise overruled by others; THEN we can talk about what specific policies do or do not meet the Constitutional or other principles

NOTE on Constitutional principles
1. I believe your point can be "translated" into specific "Constitutional terms" such as
a. equal protection of the laws (protecting your beliefs from discrimination or infringement by govt abuse of power or policy)
b. code of ethics for govt service against partisan conflicts of interest over duty to law
c. no taxation without representation, no involuntary servitude, no deprivation of liberty without due process and/or conviction of a crime, etc.

so if you are mainly interested in addressing or protesting a "general political belief"
I would use (a) and defend your beliefs under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

2. If we are addressing SPECIFIC issues, just because a person/group "has this belief"
we still need to establish some crime, abuse or violation by "due process" to prove what wrong is committed -- which violations of which principles have occurred.
(a) is general, but most cases require SPECIFIC arguments such as in (b) or (c)

This is also EDUCATIONAL to explain WHICH agenda, which program, which law or rule,
IS VIOLATING your Constitutionally protected beliefs or rights as in 1a 1b 1c, etc.
It teaches and enforces these laws at the same time, where public knowledge is lacking.

It is not enough to say "I oppose that group's beliefs" and expect this to solve all problems.

That is like someone saying they oppose YOU strictly on YOUR beliefs, instead of showing
WHERE you have committed any crime! It is NOT right to say, just because LA "makes more money" then "more taxes should be required" because it is NOT a CRIME to make more money. There must be DUE PROCESS to show Where you abused govt (like a conflict of interest with govt contracts that made private profit in exchange for political favors, etc)

Otherwise, it is NOT enough to complain or impose taxes on YOU solely for YOUR BELIEFS.

For DEFENDING your beliefs also, grievances that are SPECIFIC can be addressed to solve problems with policy. Just blaming overall philosophies with vague generalizations is not enough to show WHERE abuses have occurred and to ARGUE how to CORRECT them.

NOTE: IF you DO want to protest beliefs, then I would argue on the basis of CREED, that political parties CANNOT impose their "agenda" through govt laws or authority.

So YES, on that level, if you want to argue using the First and Fourteenth Amendments,
this would protect your beliefs about financial responsibility from infringement by others.

See more below,

I have already given two:

1.) The conflict between the goals of conservative government and modern-liberal government; and
2.) The conflict between the goals of bank guards and bank robbers.

Pick one. I'm game.

1) for differences on what to make public through govt and what to keep private
a) go through each program or policy/agency in question and decide
the most cost-effective way of managing that program to serve its purpose and population

this could be changed to delegate to academic institutions to handle, or charities or medical programs, etc. people or states may come up with different solutions to "shift" some programs to parties to manage democratically, etc.

b) for areas where people/parties AGREE belong in state or federal hands, those stay.
Ex: military defense, border or immigration

c) for areas of disagreement such as health care, I suggest this be delegated to states and to parties to decide INDEPENDENTLY with respect to unchangeable beliefs equally protected by law. by the Constitution, I defend the unchangeable belief of those who do not believe in federal authority extending to health care management and financial business decisions without consent of the taxpaying citizens affected. This requires a Constitutional Amendment to respect the beliefs of these taxpaying citizens, in order to resolve conflict. That is just my suggestion, and I believe a Constitutional Convention is needed per party, district or state to address this per population since there is so much diversity of resources and beliefs to accommodate; I don't believe these decisions can be made generically at the top.

2) I spelled out most of this issue above.
a) the issue of conflicting philosophy should be separated by party in order to respect equal beliefs and quit abusing govt to impose one way or another at the expense of both
[In practice, this concept of separation by party could translate into training party members to work IN TEAMS, where liberal/Democrats focus on cultural diversity and inclusion of constituents
while conservative/Republicans focus on teaching and enforcing "rule of law" which by its very nature remains general so govt should only be used for very generic policies that the public agrees on uniformly, while localizing the rest to individual groups or districts to handle so they can accommodate and represent SPECIFIC populations and interests instead of trying to overload all that on public policy]
b) for SPECIFIC issues or grievances with flawed laws, these would be addressed individually -- both to correct specific problems with policies that overreach or impose
and to EDUCATE people and the public on "Constitutional principles these violate" NOT vague beliefs

That's nice. Unfortunately, those are not the areas of conflict we are talking about. Or at least, not the ones that I am talking about. If your thrust all along was to mediate religious differences, then few if any of my comments apply, and I apologize for diverting your thread.

But this is a "Politics" forum, not a religion forum.

RE politics and religion

Unfortunately given that these conflicts are between POLITICAL BELIEFS:
it seems to cross the line and involve both people's beliefs projected onto the political process / public policy. Our system does not recognize political beliefs, which the parties push. So that is what I urge us to sort out now -- to RECOGNIZE that we are dealing with
conflicting BELIEFS and need to make sure these are not IMPOSED, such as against your beliefs or mine and certainly not in conflict with Constitutional principles as currently!

The need for a solution, bears little relation to the availability of a solution. As I said earlier, in the situation I have talked about, there is ZERO relation.

This process is already part of the solution. Let's see where it leads, shall we?
Even if we can't solve all the problems, if we can at least set up a model for addressing conflicts and quit the imposition and competition back and forth, that's a key part to unlocking the potential and resources to address all other issues instead of just fighting.

Please see notes above, does this help to show how this process can work to clear up conflicts and focus on corrections? Thanks!

 

[emilynghiem]

Sorry I crammed together the
preface about the whole process [which I should have specified at the start, sorry]
with addressing the "general beliefs"
and how to deal with 'specific issues'

People like PMH or LA are clearly not compatible directly and get nowhere
communicating if left to themselves. They would argue about defending or attacking.

You did notice, didn't you, that I never mentioned defending or attacking?

Back to the subject:
You offered to take an example of a disagreement or conflict that I thought did not have a solution, and show how your principles would help solve it. I supplied two.

How's it coming?

What I meant by attacking is the side banter with you and PMH
where you are arguing over WHOSE side set up the country or whatever.

That came across to me as 'attacking or defending' based on AFFILIATION BY GROUP.
So it was not about what specific issues are we going to fix right now,
but was about crediting or discrediting people by their groups.

So that is what I meant -- to avoid sidetracking arguments from distracting from
content and corrections we could be making.

However, LA, if it is important to hash out that history, then by all means,
let's talk through those perceptions and information and find out what
makes us think that way about certain groups or each other's. That's fine.

You are right, it should not be assumed to be an "attack for attack sake"
and that's not what I meant. I am trying to steer away from judging people
"by groups" or by "ability or inability to work with opponents" and just
trying to focus on what CONTENT we would otherwise miss if we can't set
up means of communicating despite our conflicts, barriers and limits.

It still looked to me like you and PMH were defending yourselves based on
"blaming the other group" -- so I wanted to focus on CONTENT instead.

I did not mean to imply there was no content to your opinions of each other's groups.
I believe this could and should be addressed, but not in "defense" mode where people are not respected equally. The information can be more readily shared in a free and safe context where differences in belief are RESPECTED instead of blaming people by groups.

 

[emilynghiem]

A true compromise only happens when both sides are equally dissatisfied with the results.
.

Ha ha, it depends on their expectations going into the process.

What a mediation/marriage counselor best described it as:
meeting in the middle is meeting between the two points
that both sides already THOUGHT was meeting in the middle

In other words, it takes stretching just a bit MORE beyond what
BOTH SIDES already thought was stretching enough.

It works when both sides recognize the other is struggling to trust more
than they want to EQUALLY; so BOTH sides are equally giving space to the other to work within their consent,
and both are stretching beyond their comfort zone to get the best solution out of the deal.

But when it is done properly, both sides are relieved to get the points they were most concerned about, and are okay with giving some extra room or freedom for the
other because they were also given some liberties that the other side wasn't sure of either.

They should both be SATISFIED with the results.
Only if they went into the process trying to "control, force or punish" the other side,
of course, they end up with less than they wanted, because no one is forced or punished.

So if their intent is for ill will or retribution "against" some other group,
sure, they might be disappointed! (and vice versa, equally for the other side, too)

 

[emilynghiem]

The key in most cases is the ability to control the dialog ...And not the principles of disagreement.

If you control the dialog ... You automatically put the opposing party on the defensive.
They will spend their time combating the material concerns of what you want ... And less time devising their own strategy for success.

.

This might work for peers WITHIN the same grouping, such as helping a fellow peer rephrase their beliefs in Constitutional language in order to communicate and reach an agreement.

but the use of specific terms is not for "controlling dialog to get what you want"
it is to manage the discussion where it stays effective.

For mixed groups, I find it is important to let people speak freely.
If there is any sense that "someone is trying to control the process to bias or limit
the outcome" then it puts PRESSURE on people and obstructs the interaction.

There is one nonprofit that trains people how to facilitate forum discussions
so participants can share freely on very sensitive issues of racial perceptions and experiences.
I copied their "Guidelines for Sharing" on a webpage because these steps are generally helpful as a framework: http://www.houstonprogressive.org/CHRguide.html
There is a balance between letting people speak freely, and making sure the points are expressed
in ways that "don't project blame or emotion onto other people in the group" which can incite disruption.

so some facilitation is needed when discussion goes off track or "gets charged with blame by label or group";
it helps if people agree to express those feelings or beliefs without targeting each other, but this should be freely agreed to, not forced.
Everyone I know makes "generalizations by group or label" because that's how we organize information -- by affiliation and associations.

I would rather train people to deal with this language even if it comes out as projected blame, instead of trying to stop or control how people say things.
if it causes a problems, let's agree to address and correct it.

maybe online we can make those type of corrections as we go, but in a spoken forum, it can get frustrating when the facilitation or moderation appears to "control who says what."
I prefer online if this allows us freedom to vent or project as part of the process, and not judge people for that when it happens. Just deal with it and try not to let it get in the way.

 

[flacaltenn]

1. The flaw in that process is that there is no solid relationship between 2 sides "being happy" and having an OPTIMAL or EFFICIENT solution.. I could for instance mediate an energy policy for the USA.. But in making "both sides happy" --- I'd have wasted about 60% of the resources allotted on useless and unworkable crap.. [/b[

2. It's inefficient at best and dangerous at the worst to assume that what opposing sides DEMAND in order to reach a compromise has ANYTHING AT ALL to do with actually solving the issue or problem..

1. Why not include the engineers or academic institutions that can help distinguish
what is "useless and unworkable crap" from what are viable sustainable solutions?

2. What you describe seems more like what is going on now, which is compromising to come up with crap before the arbitrary deadline.

This process is to AVOID that by solving the actual issue or problem.
So your objection in #2 is EXACTLY what I am asking to get rid of using real mediation.

2a. The purpose of INCLUDING people's self-represented beliefs and demands
is to make sure they are fully immersed and included in the process.

Once they are assured representation and defense of interests,
it is MUCH EASIER to work through the specific points and solve the actual issues.

If you've ever talked with counselors who do mediation, one step is to let parties vent their viewpoints and make sure all their concerns are going to be taken into consideration. They have to trust the process, the facilitators and each other, or else get different mediators.

After that, the points come second. We can't even get to the content if people are fighting over inclusion and exclusion. So those are two separate levels.

3. The real connection is on the level of laws by conscience, usually communicated using either Christian or Constitutional principles that people share in common. That is the tool to restore relationship "on the level of conscience" between the sides. if that foundation can be established as "all inclusive" then all grievances can be worked out from there.

if that trust is broken, and people see no connection or commitment, you are right there is no motivation to work toward any resolution. We have to establish a common commitment, and I find people either connect using Constitutional principles or Christian laws in order to mediate conflicts in the spirit of equal justice or Restorative Justice effectively.

I gave you a KEY public policy issue in which mediation is NOT the answer. Your poll suggests that the ability of citizen to represent a class in mediation is merely their proximity to the middle. This is wrong in terms of deriving working OPTIMAL public policy. Because you can't mediate those issues in the face of massive ignorance or misconception. AND make both sides happy at the end and still be attached to their ignorance and misconceptions.

Thus -- the BIGGER selective factor would be choosing INFORMED parties to represent the classes in conflict and the problem there is selection bias. We currently have many factors working against reaching better policy consensus..

1) THe abject failure of the media to analyze and educate the public.
2) The abject failure of the education system to teach critical thinking and fact based social studies.

Until THOSE items are addressed -- mediation is a fool's errand in public discussion forums. We could never make folks happy with an energy policy (for instance) that refuse to include the folks that CURRENTLY RUN the energy systems into the discussion. Or insist that wind power is an "ALTERNATIVE" to a coal plant. THAT'S the fallacy of attempting to solve problems by making everyone happy..

 

[emilynghiem]

Where are y'all getting this compromise stuff about mediation? [MENTION=30473]flacaltenn[/MENTION]
Do you mean when lawyers blackball the mediation process and push for only things they want,
and refuse others, to manipulate it? That's not what I mean. I AGREE that is MESSED UP.

I'm talking about unrestricted facilitation where the facilitators only help the participants spell out all their issues and points to arrive at their own conclusions they AGREE on:
FREELY with no time restraints and no money involved that skews the process.

The only restrictions I see here, are some people can only abide by Constitutional principles or change interpretations if it is explained using Christian terms they AGREE are correct.
Because of this restriction on language that divides people in groups, to communicate may require help of others who can translate principles and terms back and forth.
So nobody is REQUIRED to speak Constitutional/Christian language to communicate with others, but it may require assistance from others who can.

The mediators or participants can help with that, where there is a gap in concept or terms.
If people have limits to their beliefs, tolerance level, emotional or informational capacity,
those can be overcome with assistance from others, too, instead of letting conflicts kill the process and force compromises NOBODY wants.

The point is to overcome barriers, work around differences or conflicts,
in order to share information and resources to develop working solutions that CAN correct or reform policies to everyone's satisfaction.

Whatever negative experiences or perceptions of mediation you have,
I'm against ANY of that manipulation and the point is to address and prevent that crap!

If it blocks "redressing grievances" and "due process" I consider it Unconstitutional.
Because of my beliefs about free speech and press and the right to petition until grievances are redressed,
I am at odds with nearly the entire legal system and political party garbage that obstructs
democratic due process and prevents solving conflicts to reach consensual solutions.

What you are complaining about sounds EXACTLY like what I am seeking ways to avoid.

Mediation is not all it's cracked up to be. When engineers "compromise" on a design, folks get hurt.
What comes out of Congressional "mediation" has less of a prayer of ever being effective..

Really need to find ANSWERS to moral questions -- Mediating them does little good.
Same with most every other issue. There ARE right answers and BETTER solutions than most "compromises".. Isn't that how we got 1/5ths of a person staining our Constitution?

3/5ths.

I guess it depends what your tax rate is:
3/5 free -- if you are paying 2/5 or 40% taxes to govt.
If you are paying 4/5, did you hit the wrong button on TurboTax?

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi [MENTION=30473]flacaltenn[/MENTION]: this seems totally off.

Can we start over?

The point of the scale is to identify which persons need which help to communicate with which opponents. It is more about "communication style" and personal bias or leanings that MUST be accommodated in the process, for full and equal representation --
REGARDLESS where someone lands on the scale, that must be respected and included.

the Scale has NOTHING to do with the actual outcomes that depend on the people.
The solutions can be on the left, right middle, all over the place, depending which
people are trying to address what issue on what level within their influence.

So two people mediating on Constitutional policy on the Right and Middle, are going to arrive at some conclusion on the Right. The point is to acknowledge and respect if people CAN or CANNOT communicate using Christian terms or Constitutional terms, if this is required for someone, or is required that someone NOT have this forced as a condition.

Or if two people are coming from the Left and Right, which people or what language(s)
are needed to communicate the ideas and objections between them effectively?

Is that more clear? Can we start from there, does that help?
Thank you, FT and sorry this was not explained what the ranges are used for.

1. The flaw in that process is that there is no solid relationship between 2 sides "being happy" and having an OPTIMAL or EFFICIENT solution.. I could for instance mediate an energy policy for the USA.. But in making "both sides happy" --- I'd have wasted about 60% of the resources allotted on useless and unworkable crap.. [/b[

2. It's inefficient at best and dangerous at the worst to assume that what opposing sides DEMAND in order to reach a compromise has ANYTHING AT ALL to do with actually solving the issue or problem..

1. Why not include the engineers or academic institutions that can help distinguish
what is "useless and unworkable crap" from what are viable sustainable solutions?

2. What you describe seems more like what is going on now, which is compromising to come up with crap before the arbitrary deadline.

This process is to AVOID that by solving the actual issue or problem.
So your objection in #2 is EXACTLY what I am asking to get rid of using real mediation.

2a. The purpose of INCLUDING people's self-represented beliefs and demands
is to make sure they are fully immersed and included in the process.

Once they are assured representation and defense of interests,
it is MUCH EASIER to work through the specific points and solve the actual issues.

If you've ever talked with counselors who do mediation, one step is to let parties vent their viewpoints and make sure all their concerns are going to be taken into consideration. They have to trust the process, the facilitators and each other, or else get different mediators.

After that, the points come second. We can't even get to the content if people are fighting over inclusion and exclusion. So those are two separate levels.

3. The real connection is on the level of laws by conscience, usually communicated using either Christian or Constitutional principles that people share in common. That is the tool to restore relationship "on the level of conscience" between the sides. if that foundation can be established as "all inclusive" then all grievances can be worked out from there.

if that trust is broken, and people see no connection or commitment, you are right there is no motivation to work toward any resolution. We have to establish a common commitment, and I find people either connect using Constitutional principles or Christian laws in order to mediate conflicts in the spirit of equal justice or Restorative Justice effectively.

I gave you a KEY public policy issue in which mediation is NOT the answer. Your poll suggests that the ability of citizen to represent a class in mediation is merely their proximity to the middle. This is wrong in terms of deriving working OPTIMAL public policy. Because you can't mediate those issues in the face of massive ignorance or misconception. AND make both sides happy at the end and still be attached to their ignorance and misconceptions.

Thus -- the BIGGER selective factor would be choosing INFORMED parties to represent the classes in conflict and the problem there is selection bias. We currently have many factors working against reaching better policy consensus..

1) THe abject failure of the media to analyze and educate the public.
2) The abject failure of the education system to teach critical thinking and fact based social studies.

Until THOSE items are addressed -- mediation is a fool's errand in public discussion forums. We could never make folks happy with an energy policy (for instance) that refuse to include the folks that CURRENTLY RUN the energy systems into the discussion. Or insist that wind power is an "ALTERNATIVE" to a coal plant. THAT'S the fallacy of attempting to solve problems by making everyone happy..

For the above, this would depend on each issue, what resources need to be consulted.
I think you are ahead of me on that point.

Once people AGREE to take a scientific or religious or academic approach to their solutions,
THOSE PEOPLE can agree what experts, what institutions or organization to go through.

So yes I agree, and I trust people in the process to help each other field out what
resources and consultants they AGREE and TRUST to work with.

Note: If they don't even agree to work with the same resources, this is another area where the mediation has a chance to address those objections. People may be against certain sources they fear are "biased," but in working through the issues, they can identify common sources they AGREE to consult with that resolve those objections. Again, I've run into many people who reject Christian groups as a whole, so it takes agreeing on objective enough sources to make sure they don't feel research is biased toward religious groups.

Because this varies per issue (and sources people trust differ as well) I would leave that to the people involved with each issue to seek out the most reliable effective resources.

 

[PredFan]

I'm a pro military Libertarian. I believe in freedom, liberty, capitalism and personal responsibility. I am the sworn enemy of statists left and right.

 

[eagle1462010]

Between a Blue Dog or Moderate Democrat..........Then there may be compromise possible.

Right. Those folks would offer to leave most of the money in the bank vault.

The Moderates of both sides have been the stabilizing element of Congress. They are too far and few between to come to terms anymore.

The "compromises" engineered by the moderates on both sides, have resulted in the country sliding to the left at a "moderate" speed, instead of slamming to the left as Russia did in 1917, and Germany did in the 1930s.

And probably their most significant achievement, is that they managed to fool some Americans into thinking that this was a GOOD thing.

I used the word might for a reason. On most issues today I'm an uncompromising individual as I see our country going down the tubes for the actions of those who are supposed to be representing the country and not their own pocket books.

Polls suggest that most don't trust our Congress any further than they can throw them anymore. Poll after poll shows this. I believe mainly because they are Prostitutes for the almighty dollar. Earmarks for a vote and so on. This isn't real compromise at all. This is Corruption which is found on both sides.

To clarify my points, the OP is basically asking if any compromise can be reached and with who. My response was the only ones on the Democratic Side that would have any chance at compromise AT ALL are the moderates who may want to reverse course on the path our country is on.

The Blue Dogs were destroyed in the last election. They were thrown under the Bus because they refused to march lock step with the Far left. The Dems only want those who will toe the line, and they feed the ones who refuse to do so to the lions. There is NO COMPROMISE with them at this time at all, as I believe their course for America is full speed ahead into an Ice Field.

 

[BlackSand]

The key in most cases is the ability to control the dialog ...And not the principles of disagreement.

If you control the dialog ... You automatically put the opposing party on the defensive.
They will spend their time combating the material concerns of what you want ... And less time devising their own strategy for success.

.

This might work for peers WITHIN the same grouping, such as helping a fellow peer rephrase their beliefs in Constitutional language in order to communicate and reach an agreement.

but the use of specific terms is not for "controlling dialog to get what you want"
it is to manage the discussion where it stays effective.

For mixed groups, I find it is important to let people speak freely.
If there is any sense that "someone is trying to control the process to bias or limit
the outcome" then it puts PRESSURE on people and obstructs the interaction.

There is one nonprofit that trains people how to facilitate forum discussions
so participants can share freely on very sensitive issues of racial perceptions and experiences.
I copied their "Guidelines for Sharing" on a webpage because these steps are generally helpful as a framework: http://www.houstonprogressive.org
There is a balance between letting people speak freely, and making sure the points are expressed
in ways that "don't project blame or emotion onto other people in the group" which can incite disruption.

so some facilitation is needed when discussion goes off track or "gets charged with blame by label or group";
it helps if people agree to express those feelings or beliefs without targeting each other, but this should be freely agreed to, not forced.
Everyone I know makes "generalizations by group or label" because that's how we organize information -- by affiliation and associations.

I would rather train people to deal with this language even if it comes out as projected blame, instead of trying to stop or control how people say things.
if it causes a problems, let's agree to address and correct it.

maybe online we can make those type of corrections as we go, but in a spoken forum, it can get frustrating when the facilitation or moderation appears to "control who says what."
I prefer online if this allows us freedom to vent or project as part of the process, and not judge people for that when it happens. Just deal with it and try not to let it get in the way.

You missed the point about controling the dialog ...
In politics and negotiations ... The people who control the dialog control the agenda.
There are many examples but I will choose two that will be easy to understand.

When the Progressive Liberals try to push immigration reform through Congress ... They get Conservatives to run around thinking they will get Hispanic votes by playing nice.
The Liberals brow beat the Conservatives until Conservatives convince themselves that immigration reform is something they need to focus on and address.
Progressive Liberals control the dialog by directing the subject of the agenda ... Conservatives are the defensive with no chance of achieving anything unless they just give in.

To keep the control of the dialog away from Liberals when they press immigration issues ... Conservatives need to tell them to shut the fuck up about immigration until they can do something about the out of control spending.

As long as Liberals keep steering the dialog ... They will own the floor.
Conservatives need to stop jumping through hoops the satisfy people who are not in the least bit interested in seeing them succeed at anything.

Stick to the issues that are important to you ... And make the other party address what you want them to.

.

 

[BlackSand]

A true compromise only happens when both sides are equally dissatisfied with the results.
.

Ha ha, it depends on their expectations going into the process.

What a mediation/marriage counselor best described it as:
meeting in the middle is meeting between the two points
that both sides already THOUGHT was meeting in the middle

In other words, it takes stretching just a bit MORE beyond what
BOTH SIDES already thought was stretching enough.

It works when both sides recognize the other is struggling to trust more
than they want to EQUALLY; so BOTH sides are equally giving space to the other to work within their consent,
and both are stretching beyond their comfort zone to get the best solution out of the deal.

But when it is done properly, both sides are relieved to get the points they were most concerned about, and are okay with giving some extra room or freedom for the
other because they were also given some liberties that the other side wasn't sure of either.

They should both be SATISFIED with the results.
Only if they went into the process trying to "control, force or punish" the other side,
of course, they end up with less than they wanted, because no one is forced or punished.

So if their intent is for ill will or retribution "against" some other group,
sure, they might be disappointed! (and vice versa, equally for the other side, too)

If someone wants to murder you with a gun ... Then you both compromise and give something up ... It still isn't acceptable if you have to settle with being robbed at knifepoint.

.

 

[Politico]

None of them.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

I think I'd have to go with as far left as you can go, and then keep going for a few hundred miles.

Great! We need people like you to align with populations on the far far left reaches of the galaxy,
especially those who fell off the edge of the universe. At least you are still with us. You can help represent others who aren't.

You can help bridge the gap with people way off in space and not touching the earth at all.
People say I'm like that, sometimes, from another plane that does not intersect with reality.

Reality is why I view humanity as a disease.

. You poor,poor thing. I pity you.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi Eagle Little Acorn PredFan and others:
There are two separate things going on here.

1. not compromising principles
I believe people's beliefs, whether religious political or personal,
are protected under law from infringement by govt especially abusing politics to do so
I believe solid govt means sticking to public policies that all people agree with so there is no need for politics, and anything that does get personal or conflicting is better addressed locally so all people can solve problems their own ways without imposing on other groups.

2. working with communication differences and barriers this is where there is room, if not necessity, in opening up the channels and removing blocks to information and resources (instead of politically divided media pushing conflicts instead of solutions)

people who "cannot stand Christians or conservatives" will have to understand a lot of the process and terms rely on USING this language. It is not something to be censored out, or monopolized, but used as a tool to resolve conflicts and grievances and reach agreements.

people who "cannot work with anyone REJECTING Christian or Constitutional terms"
will also require help to communicate so
a. the process doesn't get deadlocked, hijacked by politics, and otherwise censored
or manipulated due to inability to communicate directly and equally
b. people are "forced to compromise" because of deadlocks and political messes

So the POINT is to AVOID principles "getting compromised" because people are divided over language and information sources, and how to communicate to prevent that.

I want to prevent the house from burning down while the parents are too busy yelling at each other about "who was too cheap to fix the stove" or "who left the kids alone." One yelling about how much work it takes to pay for or replace the house if it gets damaged, and the other yelling about how hard it is to work part-time, run the household, and manage the kids too. Instead of fixing ALL the problems, making sure both partners have help to do their best; and don't undercut each other when it both their efforts combined.

There's a lot to be fixed on different levels. Instead of competing to control the whole household, why not delegate tasks that fit people's natural style of leadership, communication, and approach to government. If people work better locally, one on one, to accommodate "diversity and special needs" then jobs or positions/networks should be focused LOCALLY to meet those individual needs. that doesn't have to be federalized.

If people work better on the general principles, and are not good at the relative logistics, then let those people work at positions that require streamlined management, and not constantly addressing individual needs, factors and conflicts. the federal level is supposed to be for national security and areas that CAN'T be done locally by individual decisions.

Why can't we organize people in teams, so we all know that fellow team members are handling the other areas effectively. And there is NO undercutting, conflict, or defeating each other's purposes? Can we have an orchestra if there is sabotage going on?
What does it take to reach agreement that each separate instrument and each section has specific roles and key parts to play, and all are important for the whole symphony to work.

We don't need to argue over conflicts, compromising, etc. All people should play their roles in turn and in tune, to harmonize with everyone else. The parts are different. But they are not supposed to be divided against each other in conflict or competition to oust each other.

What does it take to get to that understanding of how to use our resources effectively?

Between a Blue Dog or Moderate Democrat..........Then there may be compromise possible.

Right. Those folks would offer to leave most of the money in the bank vault.

The Moderates of both sides have been the stabilizing element of Congress. They are too far and few between to come to terms anymore.

The "compromises" engineered by the moderates on both sides, have resulted in the country sliding to the left at a "moderate" speed, instead of slamming to the left as Russia did in 1917, and Germany did in the 1930s.

And probably their most significant achievement, is that they managed to fool some Americans into thinking that this was a GOOD thing.

I used the word might for a reason. On most issues today I'm an uncompromising individual as I see our country going down the tubes for the actions of those who are supposed to be representing the country and not their own pocket books.

Polls suggest that most don't trust our Congress any further than they can throw them anymore. Poll after poll shows this. I believe mainly because they are Prostitutes for the almighty dollar. Earmarks for a vote and so on. This isn't real compromise at all. This is Corruption which is found on both sides.

To clarify my points, the OP is basically asking if any compromise can be reached and with who. My response was the only ones on the Democratic Side that would have any chance at compromise AT ALL are the moderates who may want to reverse course on the path our country is on.

The Blue Dogs were destroyed in the last election. They were thrown under the Bus because they refused to march lock step with the Far left. The Dems only want those who will toe the line, and they feed the ones who refuse to do so to the lions. There is NO COMPROMISE with them at this time at all, as I believe their course for America is full speed ahead into an Ice Field.

because of this divide and conquer mentality, which I agree is destructive
and self-defeating, and unsustainable.

what if the point is to work together where everyone has equally important roles, jobs even offices to get certain tasks done. what jobs would you delegate to which people to take on?

who can lead or organize which groups around which issues?
and what type of program or area are their skills and approach best suited to serve?

 

[emilynghiem]

If someone wants to murder you with a gun ... Then you both compromise and give something up ... It still isn't acceptable if you have to settle with being robbed at knifepoint.

.

long before anyone wants to murder anyone with a gun

what is their motive or purpose, what do they want and what do they fear

how do we help people meet those goals without fear, compromise or murdering anyone?

if we wait too long to address problems, govt only intervenes at the point a crime is committed, or AFTER damage has occurred (or can be proven)

How do we intervene into a conflicting situation early enough to correct the problems?
How can citizens participate more proactively to address conflicts at the root,
instead of watching them escalate until they get land in the hands of govt bureaucracy after it's gone too far?

 

[emilynghiem]

Thanks BlackSand, I'm going to go back and THANK all of you for all your posts, as all of this is necessary and helpful. I will try to pick just one to REP each of you on, and THANK the rest.

1. you are still talking in the context of ADVERSARIAL negotiation which is manipulated politically
I agree that gets messed up, and all you say *IS* what is wrong with the adversarial system
(the liberals I know feel the same way about not trusting conservative opponents to hijack the process and govt, so this fails)

2. I am talking about a collaborative context where people agree to work in teams, and not stop until a true resolution/consensus is reached, correcting all the problems and answering all the objections

NOT skirting, NOT playing games, compromising, denying and switching/distracting etc.
NOT blackballing, holding something over someone else, etc etc etc

how do we get AWAY from all that mess?
That is why I want to know which people stand on which issues
and organize so that no one is worried about compromising.

If I know you and others are on the Conservative team I know you will not compromise.
so other Conservatives don't have to play any games to defend those principles.
That side will be represented. and anything shared has to meet those standards without gameplaying or compromising.

Likewise for people on the left who otherwise don't trust the right not to blackball or hijack the process.

The minute something is off, someone in the group will protest, and that has to be addressed and corrected. so nobody can play games if everyone is watching from all sides.

all I ask is honesty, that if all people agree to point out problems and also agree to make corrections or substitutions that do not compromise anyone (but may help others to communicate or participate), then we can organize solutions everyone agrees will work.

It is NOT about changing or compromising one's own principles/beliefs, at all,
but expanding one's perception not to fear other people or groups as "unworkable with."

People can "add information or ideas" that supplement what they already believe in, WITHOUT changing or conflicting. We can still not want anything to do with other groups, but we can sort out which ideas or resources from those groups can help solve problems.

The key in most cases is the ability to control the dialog ...And not the principles of disagreement.

If you control the dialog ... You automatically put the opposing party on the defensive.
They will spend their time combating the material concerns of what you want ... And less time devising their own strategy for success.

.

This might work for peers WITHIN the same grouping, such as helping a fellow peer rephrase their beliefs in Constitutional language in order to communicate and reach an agreement.

but the use of specific terms is not for "controlling dialog to get what you want"
it is to manage the discussion where it stays effective.

For mixed groups, I find it is important to let people speak freely.
If there is any sense that "someone is trying to control the process to bias or limit
the outcome" then it puts PRESSURE on people and obstructs the interaction.

There is one nonprofit that trains people how to facilitate forum discussions
so participants can share freely on very sensitive issues of racial perceptions and experiences.
I copied their "Guidelines for Sharing" on a webpage because these steps are generally helpful as a framework: http://www.houstonprogressive.org
There is a balance between letting people speak freely, and making sure the points are expressed
in ways that "don't project blame or emotion onto other people in the group" which can incite disruption.

so some facilitation is needed when discussion goes off track or "gets charged with blame by label or group";
it helps if people agree to express those feelings or beliefs without targeting each other, but this should be freely agreed to, not forced.
Everyone I know makes "generalizations by group or label" because that's how we organize information -- by affiliation and associations.

I would rather train people to deal with this language even if it comes out as projected blame, instead of trying to stop or control how people say things.
if it causes a problems, let's agree to address and correct it.

maybe online we can make those type of corrections as we go, but in a spoken forum, it can get frustrating when the facilitation or moderation appears to "control who says what."
I prefer online if this allows us freedom to vent or project as part of the process, and not judge people for that when it happens. Just deal with it and try not to let it get in the way.

You missed the point about controling the dialog ...
In politics and negotiations ... The people who control the dialog control the agenda.
There are many examples but I will choose two that will be easy to understand.

When the Progressive Liberals try to push immigration reform through Congress ... They get Conservatives to run around thinking they will get Hispanic votes by playing nice.
The Liberals brow beat the Conservatives until Conservatives convince themselves that immigration reform is something they need to focus on and address.
Progressive Liberals control the dialog by directing the subject of the agenda ... Conservatives are the defensive with no chance of achieving anything unless they just give in.

To keep the control of the dialog away from Liberals when they press immigration issues ... Conservatives need to tell them to shut the fuck up about immigration until they can do something about the out of control spending.

As long as Liberals keep steering the dialog ... They will own the floor.
Conservatives need to stop jumping through hoops the satisfy people who are not in the least bit interested in seeing them succeed at anything.

Stick to the issues that are important to you ... And make the other party address what you want them to.

.

the direction and focus of the interactions will be on solving problems using all available ideas, resources and information, so that all people are satisfied and nobody is forced to compromise or put up with problems or conflicts left unaddressed or made worse etc.

it's like what if we took the First Amendment about redressing grievances
and set up a system that REQUIRED all grievances to be redressed in full until all parties are satisfied, all conflicts and problems are addressed and resolved. And if a plan or solution fails or changes, then the people go back and resolve it again until it works right.
and don't stop until they agree, step by step, what to try or not do, until it all works out.