I think his main point is we need to find a healthy way of acknowledging differences where differences do exist, because we won't be getting along all the time.

We always require consensus. I know nothing in the law says that, but as a matter of culture, we tend of ostrcise or ridicule people who refuse to follow the consensus on highly contentious topics. It's often very subtle, but it happens, and it's a very serious issue, which leads to a collective culture where we either rationalise acts outside the legal framework or react to dissenting opinions as if they were threats to the region.

"It's alright to be more lenient with the coupers, because the system truly is dysfunctional and they intended well." I can guarantee you that this argument is holding because many of the coupers are still well liked and those few who were ejected are controversial enough. I say this not to cause further division, but to illustrate the point that we have a problem with (a) facing ugly truths and (b) respecting our institutionality.

You may say that right now it's more important to focus on reconciliation and unity, which means being more lenient with those who couped. But that inevitably involves ignoring the pleas of those who were personally affected by the coup, and that is directly tied to the culture of extreme consensus. You instantly make them feel as if their plight and concerns are less important than being sympathetic towards their aggressors.

I don't mean you personally are guilty of this, I mean that we are a culture create that environment, and that has happened in many past discussions. Those who formerly argued against independence or supported defenderism were treated less favourably than those who supported independence. Those who opposed bicameralism were treated less favourably than those who supported giving greater powers to the gameside community. Those who oppose being immediately lenient towards the coupers are treated with snark by some or not so seriously by others.

I don't have a solution to this, but I do think it's important for us to acknowledge that this happens and is a recurring problem. I am guilty of this. You are guilty of this. Glen is guilty of this. Belschaft is guilty of this. Wolf is builty of this. We all are. I say this not to shame anyone, but rather to clearly state what I think is the main problem with our political culture.

We have to stop treating our opponents as if they were threats to the region or its values. There are no inherent values to the South Pacific. It is what we make it, and that means coming to terms with the fact that the people who merely argue against us are not the devil, nor are they some existencial threat that must be dealth with harshly. We can't dismiss their opinions, nor treat them with snark.

You (general you) want to make of the South Pacific the laid back region it once was? Then be laid back, but be consistent about it. That means being calm when arguing with your opponents, instead of yelling at them or being unnecessarily snarky. That means working within the framework we all agreed, instead of trying to dissolve it. That means reaching to your opponent and getting to know the person behind their Assembly persona. Because we are all actual people! We have goals, aspirations, feelings. We smile when something goes our way, we hurt when someone does us wrong.

I suppose the key to being a bit more harmonious, no matter how difficult it will be, or how idealistic you might call it, is remembering that we are arguing with actual people, who are here because they want to have fun, and treating them as such. If you are in a situation where someone might not be having fun, then it's probably time to step back and talk with each other as people, to try and see how you both can improve the situation.

This might be idealistic, naive, easy to say but harder to do. Sure. But do you prefer the alternative?

And wow. My argument changed a lot as my post progressed. It went from a half-attack to a call for acknowledging each other as people. I'd go back and change my whole post, to make it flow better, but I'll let it like that. I kinda like the unplanned progression it has. To be honest, I'm not even sure if I'm responding to Tsu's post anymore, as much as just making a general comment on why the government is so dysfunctional. Or, in a way, my proposed solution is as messy as the problem to which is answers.