Indeed, the so-called leftists think that they can have obligations to "all kinds of people",
so not only to those with whom they have a real, direct relationship on an every day basis, but to those with whom they have no such personal relationship.
It is a self-empowerment to think of oneself as obligated to someone who may not even have the expectation of wanting to have such a relationship with a stranger. Since first and foremost I and the so far unknown person have not yet related to each other.
Recruiting my target person or target group
In my desire to make a relation happen, I set myself up to that exact mission. To make strangers into non strangers and make their personal miserable circumstances my obligation. Because, if those circumstances weren't miserable, I would have no reason to get in touch with "all kinds of (under privileged) people".
If I am imbued with the idea that there are people ‘out there’ who are just waiting for me to make a commitment to them, I will make it easy for them and me to make it happen.
Still, that does not put me into the position to have a consequence-based
emotional and economic relationship with a person I classify as marginalised, since my actions and statements are independent of what I advise them to do or not to do in my role as their helper. Because, that is my main intention: to help ("all kinds of people").
If I advise them to do or not to do something that results in a financial consequence, for example, I still cannot be held accountable by a non-family member or a non-work colleague or a non business partner, if the person seeking advice has suffered a financial loss as a result of help (advice) received from me.
That is to say, that the injured party cannot hold me personally emotionally or financially liable, because I - in fact - have no such emotional or financial connection or obligation. I can appear as I please, though.
What I did in my attempt to help, was to use a trick on myself and on "any kind of a person".
You can test it easily whether what is considered to be social - "I am helping you" - puts the helper in the position of accountability
in case the help does not work.
Between people who are in a direct and intimate relationship, there is an unwritten contract that when you ill advice your husband or mother or adult child, all of them are entitled to approach you and make you accountable for what they see you've done wrong - it does not matter if what they say is correct. They have such power since the relationship is based on every day life and deep familial roots.
The second important aspect is that you are naturally available and you are as well demanded in being available in being approached.
But the role of the helper towards "all kinds of people" is different.
Since there are neither familial bounds, nor rules made clear through working contract in working spaces, your accountability about what your help might cause the person being helped is rather unclear.
For professionals in the helping industry there is no such thing
as a bullet proof contract between the helper and the being helped when it comes to counseling or consulting. Quite the contrary, no helper gives you a guarantee that what he is going to do for you, will certainly succeed. They all tell you, that "I might be of help" or "chances are this and that" but what they do not give is a key to their house, access to their bank account, private telephone numbers or invitation to their personal get togethers (funerals, birthdays etc.) .
If a client or a patient acts in a way that leads to the conclusion on the side of the helper that he does not want to maintain that relationship any further, the client has no other chance than to accept that decision. In the same way, the helper must accept that a client may not want to be supported any further by the helper.
If the two separate, it has no intimate future financial consequences whatsoever for both of them, since they are no working colleagues, do neither run a common business, nor rent or own a house together financed on monthly payment, they do not share a car, they do not have children together, they are not related to one another in any other meaning that the one just canceled.
If a relationship can be canceled in such easy way,
it means that it is NOT based on obligation. But on a temporarily made agreement that one helps and the other receives help.
It cannot be otherwise. Even when a client would want his helper to stay in touch and even if the client tries everything to maintain the relationship, he cannot, by any means, refer to any past or future relation, since there isn't a commonly shared past and there is no entitlement for such a future relationship. And vice versa.
Only when the helper and the helped transform their non-obligatory relationship
into an obligatory one will their relationship clearly change into an intimate one. For example, a therapist marries his patient. A professor has sex with a student or a social worker lends money to a client.
That would make the setting personal and therefore obligatory.
One professor cannot marry all of his students, and one social worker cannot lend his private money to every client.
Since one person can only have so and so much of obligatory relationships, there is a clear natural limit to his ability to become obligated.
It is for a reason, why the the environment of helper and being helped is called a "set up" or a "setting".
Which is exactly, what it is.
Precisely because of the non-obligatory nature of the relationship, the helper has the freedom to come and go as he or she sees fit, just as the person being helped is free to do so.
And so it is a great joke that this freedom, this non-binding nature, the non-involvement in intimate matters that spares both the one and the other something like hopeless entanglement, is being expressed as "obligation".
The untrue assertion that one can maintain an obligation to ‘all kinds of people’ speaks volumes about the fact that this is an illusion.
Someone who wants to help underprivileged people should ask themselves whether they have sufficient intimate commitments in their private life and, if not, whether it is possible that their clients (or targeted singles/groups) are supposed to compensate for their own deficits.
Conclusion:
If a so called leftist expresses to have an "obligation", he errs or misleads himself and others.
it almost makes as much sense as
thinking that a purely "objective" third-party
is ideal
for moderating dispute resolution
IF I am emotionally affected by someone else's situation, it is because I am mixing their emotions with mine. Once I have recognised this, the goal cannot be that the emotionally wounded person should be able to take revenge on his opponent or impose his will on him.
However, as it is I myself who wants to take revenge or impose my will, but I don't have the courage to confront my perceived opponent directly, I take the diversions via a substitute victim. A person or a group. I misuse this person or group for my intention of wanting to win or achieve a privilege, but do not put myself personally in danger of losing.
An activist, acting as a private person, takes no risk, since what he avoids is to act, for example, as a lawyer, who argues cases on the bases of expertise and protocol. An activist, who has no profession in years whatsoever, cannot be held reliable for whatever mistake he conducts outside profession (that's the "funny" thing about it).
Because he follows no protocol. One cannot be an "activist" without any attached profession. If one DOES attach to oneself "activism" and one professes nothing in combination with it, one could as well say: "I am acting but whatever I act out, I am not responsible".
although "activism" does usually carry some personal risk
Some additional thoughts:
It depends what kind of topic is chosen by the activist and how much violence potential the activist wants to live out/does not want to use.
It is safe to demonstrate against people who can be expected to react moderately rather than intemperately anyway. Therefore, the moderate is the dishonest target for intemperate protest or resentment against him. Since it is mostly safe to act as an ‘activist’ against rather peaceful people, because one proceeds with a greater certainty that there is hardly anything like an over-potentiated readiness for violence in the sum of the moderates.
Of course, individuals can be provoked and if a mob knows how to isolate individuals, the likelihood of violence increases. Which then puts the provocateur in the (desired) situation of using fists or other weapons. Since he has created this situation, which now gives him the justification to use physical force.
With regard to the Antifa, for example, I would say that they are mainly loudmouths and non-rebels. Because they either take action against individual speakers, podium stage users or against legitimately positioned party officials who can't afford any physical assaults because of the bad publicity and who are already the made culprits from MSM.
On the side of the activist who attaches a profession to his activism, the risk is to lose his job, or his reputation, or both, or go to prison. ...
On the side of the antifa-folks, for example, there is risk involved in being caught in the act of destroying objects or injuring people, I guess. Or, to meet someone who uses his fists or other weapons.
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Nat-Turner
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Nat-Turner
Thanks for the source.
That says a lot about how people who don't want to deal with their personal history incite others to take that personal struggle as ‘their own’. You could say that under this premise, those who didn't want to kill their inner demons/ideas and instead picked people as their targets to murder went along with it. Killing a family in their sleep is about the most mangy thing a man can do.
Ultimately, it can probably also be considered a suicide mission as far as Nat Turner is concerned, who presumably wasn't unaware that the cavalry would be sent after him, but in his fanaticism chose to ignore it. Since he was a slave, he probably realised that his actions would hurt his fellow blacks, but he apparently didn't care and preferred to indiscriminately murder whites for personal revenge. Ergo, he didn't give a shit about ‘the black cause’.
To call him "deeply religious" as it were in the text, I think, is injustice towards being religiously educated.
On the other hand, the whites acting hysterically, might also be something to investigate critically. As it seems, hatred and fear were the winners and rationalism was not.
it's a little funny to me that when one group enslaves and murders and slaughters
it's sort of dismissed as a "systemic tragedy"
but when a few individuals try and do the same thing on a much much smaller scale
somehow they're "monsters"
See by case and not by race.
Who slaughters but could have done otherwise, is not excused.
Murder is not excused, only because it happens on a smaller scale than the murder on a greater scale. Murder is murder.
True. It should carry risk. LoL :D
Dispute mediating was part of my education. What we've learned is, that there is no such thing as being able to be objective. The method used is called "all party-understanding".
You listen to both clients in turn and concentrate on what they are saying. You record the arguments in such a way that you put the statements into a short and comprehensible form, which you record in the presence of both parties and obtain their agreement that your summary is correct. Once all the essential elements have been agreed between you and the respective parties, you moderate the communication between the parties and intervene whenever the conversation threatens to become irrational.
At the beginning, you inform the mandators of the strict protocol according to which the dispute resolution will be conducted and emphasise that you will not tolerate any deviation from it. They both must agree.
It is because you are NOT objective and state this clearly that you will have sympathy as well as antipathy for what will be said and you express this to those present.
In the rare cases I mediated, I felt both sympathy and antipathy for both parties and disclosed this. As the third person, this role was accepted, as I had no private connections to either party.
The aim of the dispute resolution is not my wish that one of the two should win, but that both should emerge from the dispute as winners. The result is what we called the least hurting compromises, since more often than not, there must be compromised.
Actually, if you talk in this way to the parties, they easily accept the fact that they most likely will not bring all of their desires to fulfillment, but some - mediation helps to find out which of the desires shall be prioritized. The goal and result of that negotiation is to have clearly documented points to which both parties consented.
I would have loved to mediate more cases.
find the nash equilibrium
What is "nash"?
A Nash Equilibrium is a situation in a game where no player can benefit by changing their strategy while the other players keep theirs unchanged.
Re🤬eD
🥓