@SubArcticTundra
A very cool methode to bridge gaps. There is the problem, that it can result in a middle way, where that should not exist (eg. Human rights are non negotiable, so decisions which do not grant these should be excluded from the discussion. There can be no middle ground in this).
It does have the advantage of not creating a polarised field with breaches for anger/ridicule engagement.
@SubArcticTundra
A very cool methode to bridge gaps. There is the problem, that it can result in a middle way, where that should not exist (eg. Human rights are non negotiable, so decisions which do not grant these should be excluded from the discussion. There can be no middle ground in this).
It does have the advantage of not creating a polarised field with breaches for anger/ridicule engagement.