[Imc-lasvegas] Consensus for who?
A Better World for All
abetterworldforall at earthlink.net
Thu Mar 3 19:14:40 PST 2005
"I thought it would be a waste of time posting but since Jeffrey finally saw the problem with the "process" of consensus being bypassed, I will reply here."
I would like to point out a trend I see in this discussion, that I feel is fundamental to resolving these and any other issues we may come across.
I have noticed that it seems to suit some people to only respond to or even acknowledge ideas that fall in line with their own. If someone has a different view of consensus or goals or what the biggest problem at hand is, that doesn't matter, only when MY view is being backed up is it not a waste of time to discuss things. I find this very interesting from people who have repeatedly talked about the importance of consensus and caring for one another.
I think Logynn made an excellent suggestion that we hold a consensus training as soon as possible. I also think that he made some very valid points about the correctness of self criticism and the necessity of anonymnity.
I would like to know why no one else felt that his views were worth considering or responding to. If someone disagrees with you are they instantly bullying or destroying consensus? Throughout this entire argument certain people who then declared themselves victimized refused to respond to or even acknowledge others point of view.
Gail, I am glad that you cited examples of why you felt attacked, without knowing exactly what it is that is causing these hurt feelings, how is a person to know what they did wrong? Unless you expect those of us that you are working with to go out of their way to abuse and attack you. I never expect that anyone here is going to try to hurt me, that just doesn't make sense. We are obviously all working hard for many of the same goals, so why would it be likely that anyone here would be intentionally hurting eachother. We all come from different places and have different styles and ways of approach, and as Logynn aptly put it "The trouble is we all have grand visions of egalitarian social relations, but we all carry a lifetime of hierarchal socialization. So considering our human predicament, we're doing pretty damn good just to be here." And I agree. Why not look for the best in those you are working with, instead of shutting down because something came across incorrectly. At this point, I think everyone involved in this issue has been guilty of this to some extent, including myself.
To address what has become an even bigger issue in my opinion, I would like to ask why certain people refuse to even acknowledge EVERYONE'S viewpoint, not just the one's they like the best. This I will not say that I have done, because I find that entirely unexcusable. I want to know why certain posts are "worthwhile" and others sit ignored. Is this how consensus works? Is consensus a tool for some people's "comfort" but not the rest of us? I am very uncomfortable with the fact that the post in question was deleted, as were several other members of LVIMC, as well as several other members of the community that I have spoken with.
Another question, did anyone here ask other uninvolved people what their views or opinions were? This is the first thing I did so that way I would know that I wasn't just catering to my own personal views but trying to find out what the community I thought we were supposed to be serving felt, and I asked several opinions before I ever responded on this issue at all. Maybe the goals of LVIMC are completely different from what I thought they were. If the goals are to ensure the personal comfort and happy feelings of only the small group that is priviledged enough to be able to actively participate, then you are right. Only this small groups discomfort or not matters. Although, I would have considered myself part of this group, and by this definition, my hurt feelings and discomfort don't matter.
I do believe we need a consensus training as soon as possible, as well as to redefine the goals of this project. I believe the main points that need defined are whether or not LVIMC is just for those with the time to be actively involved, or if it is a community resource as I've understood it to be.
Oh, and before I send this, I just want to clarify that I am not attacking Gail just because I specifically quoted something she wrote, I just think that line is indicative of what I have seen the response to have been from several people.
Looking forward to response, unless my views are "a waste of time"
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Imc-lasvegas