i-baster wrote:

Agent Gilly, a few minutes ago after reading this...

Now we are talking.

"PICK UP THE PHONE AND MAKE IT HAPPEN"

How did gilly get stuck in that not exactly seamless moebius time loop? Someone needs to call dr who and get her the hell out of there!

dubmeup wrote:
She rejected consensus and got stuck in an eternal loop.

oioioi wrote: Did we agree on that? I missed the poll.

I just tried to make this reply:

And got some weird red banner telling me martg doesn't exist....or sumfink.

The idea is to work things out so that everyone is agreeable mart. As in all involved are satisfied with the agreement. Something which simply cant happen with majority rule. It seems that most here think its a pipe dream though.
Not even prepared to give it a try it seems.

Edit. It appears mart deleted his post.

dubmeup wrote:
And they told me on the internet I could escape reality.

The swines!

dubmeup wrote:
sorry, I hadn't read the thread properly, I was just repeating what others had already said

I don't believe consensus is desirable let alone possible
consensus by definition means that everyone has to conform instead of being an individual.

imo conflict can be a good thing

I aint got the bandwidth to look up the definition of the word consensus, agreement would be an apt alternative in my book.
The alternstive to evereyone being satisfied with a deal is some being forced to conform to majority rule. I dont see any forced conformity in people putting their heads together to reach agreement on the other hand.

There is beginning to be a recurrent theme of consensus=conformity from posters on t'other side of t'pond.

Is this an anarchy=chaos scenario?

Could be oi. Its a bit like when you talk about money being totally unnecessary, if you get it its simple, if you dont its a recipe for disaster.

dubmeup wrote: oioioi wrote:
There will always be different ways of looking at things, we should embrace that not try to get everyone to think the same

Consensus does equal conformity because people are different, if everyone has to agree then naturally some would be going against what they believe.

I think you are mistaken mart. Its not about getting everyone to think/be the same, its about people putting all their different views out there and then working together to use those views to try and find a plan that is acceptable to all.
That jas nothing to do with conforming. Majority rule on the other hand, does. The minority are forced to conform to the majority rule.

martg wrote:
I don't see different P.O.V. and consensus as being exclusive and haven't found it to be a barrier previously.

Double edged sword comes to mind.

A fine example of consensus/agreement working is the various direct action 'groups'. In my experience a talking circle approach with an aim to guiding overall direction has proven very effective. It also tends to rein in those strong personalities that would otherwise end up as 'leaders'. It doesnt squash the individual, rather it empowers them within the group.

dubmeup wrote:
I see what you're saying, but the inevitable outcome of everyone putting their ideas forward and trying to find a plan everyone could agree with is that it would never happen, there will always be people who don't agree and then those people would be overridden.

why do we need everyone to agree anyway, shouldn't everyone be governing themselves and not imposing their plan on others?

dubmeup wrote:
"Let's torch the place!"

"let's give the security guard a Chinese burn"

"That's racist!"

Cider.

Everyone can at least drink cider.

Consensus.