## Discussions

Discussions that could be so useful if only certain pitfalls were avoided. That we could talk about deeper values, methodologies, what actual transactions take place. Instead, it is always the same representation of a walled institutional narrative which proclaims as though it has never spoken before.

These narratives always miss the mark of conducting themselves in the locale of greatest interest, but that could all be forgiven if only it wasn't a shutting down of other inquiry.

In the case of motifs which are perhaps too deeply embedded in the human experience to be considered a mere motif. So that deserves disambiguation:

It's not enough to simply say that an injust event has occurred to one's ancestry. This is a neverending game, no matter where it is played. So, for this reason, we need to examine why and how these particular oursuits are coming into being, the mechanisms, the rationale at a more semantically complete level. We must take the findings of these inquiries and deliberate over the values being prposed. Instead, we get relegated to assuming that people's experiences are different on the basis of an arbitrary characteristic, while also pretending experiences to be equal in other circumstances. Relegating us, inevitably, into groups which facilitate a move towards what one might call a set of interesting names, all of which bearing notoriety in the disregard for human life => Both by mortal means, and also by coercion. Nevertheless, we are kept from making such distinctions, and instead create unnecessary conflict in bad taste, and with some expense. So, if there is a high resource requirement for proper conduct, and a high risk of insufficient conduct, then it becomes an irrational pursuit. The proposition is so distasteful that even describing it seems lke an undesirable and irrational endeavour. How to rectify this? Is this to be rectified?
What for?