What do we (not) put up with?

If reconciliation (seemingly) does not come, can we find agreement together on what can (not) be reconciled?

Two months after the assassination, reconciliation becomes a platitude. It seems that we are going back to the old ways that keep us in a state of latent “civil war” again. So how to get out of this vicious circle?

In DEMDIS, we see a solution in the creation of new arenas for a fair and open competition of opinions between diverse camps. We have therefore currently launched the first part of a more thoughtful block, which is now synchronously live only with usbut also on Diary N a Pravda newspaper.

After 24 hours from the opening of the discussion, we have almost 400 discussants and the top 3 most consensual opinions:

• Conflicts are natural in a democracy. Even a reconciled society will argue about some things. (8)
• I do not accept that the loudest and most hateful wins in public debate. (13)
• Being so divided hurts us all. (9)

Our team and I are convinced that there are (in principle) bad “players”, only poorly designed “games”. That’s why we offer you a challenge (with which we constantly struggle) – can we define the essence of the problem in such a way that “both sides of the bank” agree on it? Can we get below the surface without falling into the “cheap” hatred of “the others”?

We will incorporate the top comments from this thread into the discussion. May the best (bridgebuilder) win!

Ofc, we will be grateful for any (ideally critical) feedback. (: Good luck hunting!

Resources: LIVE RAW REPORT from the discussion; Functioning of DEMDIS discussions; Analytical methodology; Frequently asked questions.