hrj

So, we were doing a role-playing exercise in a training session for "facilitating discussions" and my small group was assigned the discussion topic "your local $SportsTeam has donated $10million to the city to improve the quality of life -- what should you spend it on?"

I'm supposed to be role-playing the "contrary" person, so first off I wanted to know what strings were attached. What sorts of concessions did $SportsTeam want in exchange for this bribe...uh...donation? Or what were they trying to make up for?

The mock facilitator handled that digression nicely.

Another team member proposed that a good use of the money would be to install and maintain more public toilet facilities, on the basis that this would be a general civic good. Another team member raised the discussion of whether public toilets would become an "attractive nuissance" for unhoused people, and was concerned about placement and whether they would improve the quality of life or detract. (I could be kind and assume that this team member was role-playing and did not simply have a knee-jerk NIMBY attitude.)

I had to announce that I was incapable of role playing on this topic, because in my opinion if we could do anything to improve the lives of unhoused people it *would* improve the overall quality of life even if no one else was directly benefitted. And I went on a little rant about how the housing crisis was a sign of our failure as a civilized society etc. etc.

And now you know why my co-workers get That Look when I open my mouth in any sort of discussion that touches on social politics.