Talossan Empathy Network - Mental Health Support Group

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

Thank you for your contribution. This group remains open for all who wish to participate. Pontificating is considered participation based on your recent contribution. And if further pontificating is your desire I look forward to your next contribution, Ian.

See, this is the problem, Brenéir. I read your response to Ián above as hostility and dismissal masked in polite-sounding language ("pontificating" is a pejorative), and I feel that that contradicts your stated wish for "empathy".  At the moment, I don't have confidence that people in here can disagree with you without an icy put-down, or at best a cold acknowledgement with no empathy behind it, in response.

Honestly, I strongly believe that any group such as this will go nowhere unless it adopts the principles of Non-Violent Communication or something similar.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Thank you for your contribution. This group remains open for all who wish to participate. Pontificating is considered participation based on your recent contribution. And if further pontificating is your desire I look forward to your next contribution, Ian.

See, this is the problem, Brenéir. I read your response to Ián above as hostility and dismissal masked in polite-sounding language ("pontificating" is a pejorative), and I feel that that contradicts your stated wish for "empathy".  At the moment, I don't have confidence that people in here can disagree with you without an icy put-down, or at best a cold acknowledgement with no empathy behind it, in response.

Honestly, I strongly believe that any group such as this will go nowhere unless it adopts the principles of Non-Violent Communication or something similar.

I remember that you never responded to my last message, but if you think that it didn't contain anything worth responding to, then we have to leave it there.

On the other hand; some of the issues I covered in the Friendly Chat with Bråneu, specifically about lack of trust, holding grudges, and the combination which has led to the current nasty partisan atmosphere. Maybe they deserve a fresh look.

I think you closed with another appeal on monarchy reform which wasn't the intent of the outreach tbh, Miestra, so I didn't respond. After your fresh look please feel free to let me know if I am mistaken though.

Miestra, I thought my lack of response to your appeal on Monarchy Reform during our last private conversation was the problem. I think you find what you want to see.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

Well, I just looked it up and - as I suspected - that is *not* what the main subject of my last message to you was. It was the second of three themes of that last message, and it was mentioned "in passing". The first and last themes of that message concerned other Talossans. The first concerned someone whom you blamed me for protecting the bad behaviour of. The last concerned someone whom I blamed you for protecting the bad behaviour of. I've got the screenshots downloaded, but I'm not going to publish them (without severe provocation) because I don't want those other Talossans dragged into this argument.

I repeat that I don't think an Empathy group can work unless everyone feels that they won't be attacked or spoken to/about in a way that will make them feel shamed or angry. I honestly feel that the way you address Ián Tamoran was rude, which makes me feel that I can't trust you to be Empathetic if you get annoyed with someone.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Well, I just looked it up and - as I suspected - that is *not* what the main subject of my last message to you was. It was the second of three themes of that last message, and it was mentioned "in passing". The first and last themes of that message concerned other Talossans. The first concerned someone whom you blamed me for protecting the bad behaviour of. The last concerned someone whom I blamed you for protecting the bad behaviour of. I've got the screenshots downloaded, but I'm not going to publish them (without severe provocation) because I don't want those other Talossans dragged into this argument.

I repeat that I don't think an Empathy group can work unless everyone feels that they won't be attacked or spoken to/about in a way that will make them feel shamed or angry. I honestly feel that the way you address Ián Tamoran was rude, which makes me feel that I can't trust you to be Empathetic if you get annoyed with someone.

Miestra, in the same way you are telling me that how I spoke to Ian was rude I am telling you that what I took away from your final message was an ask to continue working on monarchy reform. You can post screenshots if you want but that does not change what I took from your message any more than an apology from me (of which there have been several) would change your outlook on this group.

Also, I don't consider this an argument. You are expressing your feelings and I am responding to those expressions. We have long established that we don't trust one another.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

Okay; well, I am not looking for an apology from you right now. The issue is that when I talk about "the issues raised in my last message" I am *not* referring to the very brief suggestion that you should talk to Ian Plätschisch about monarchy reform (that ship has sailed, for the coming term at least). I am referring to the following aspect:

1. I gave my explanation why I had defended/protected X person whom you felt had behaved impermissibly towards you.
2. I then went on to explain the problem with how you supported and defended Y person who had behaved badly towards me. This was the part which stuck in my craw that you did not respond to.

The problem with Talossan partisanship is precisely that we form "teams" and things that members of our own "team" do can always be justified because "the other team" deserve it. There is no hope for Empathy unless *everyone* is prepared to climb down off the partisanship and listen to/acknowledge the hurt that "our team" has caused the other.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Okay; well, I am not looking for an apology from you right now. The issue is that when I talk about "the issues raised in my last message" I am *not* referring to the very brief suggestion that you should talk to Ian Plätschisch about monarchy reform (that ship has sailed, for the coming term at least). I am referring to the following aspect:

1. I gave my explanation why I had defended/protected X person whom you felt had behaved impermissibly towards you.
2. I then went on to explain the problem with how you supported and defended Y person who had behaved badly towards me. This was the part which stuck in my craw that you did not respond to.

The problem with Talossan partisanship is precisely that we form "teams" and things that members of our own "team" do can always be justified because "the other team" deserve it. There is no hope for Empathy unless *everyone* is prepared to climb down off the partisanship and listen to/acknowledge the hurt that "our team" has caused the other.

Miestra, if you want to talk about partisan climb-downs then you might want to show you understand the hurt you have caused as well. Both sides does not mean self-flagellation from those on the other side. We can throw what we believe are obligations on the other until forever but I'd like to hear where you think you've gone too far.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

Miestra, if you want to talk about partisan climb-downs then you might want to show you understand the hurt you have caused as well.

Yes. That is precisely what I am suggesting. That is what I was trying to do in Part 1 of the last message I sent you. Was it insufficient? I don't know because you never responded.