Connect with us


THE AFRICA I WANT powered by the UNIVERSITY OF FOSMM – CONGRATS TO TENDAYI, MIKE HULL & MR. LEON LOUW for their exemplary thought leadership and execution in selflessly giving up time to build a fact-based Africa

Caroline Du Plessis



Do you agree that if this were a microcosm of society at large, you would be able to predict why some human associations are not able to inspire creativity and problem-solving?


Yes, based on the conversation presented in the eight parts, it is evident that the participants’ differing perspectives, confrontational approaches, and personal attacks create a divisive and unproductive atmosphere. In such an environment, it becomes challenging to foster creativity, collaboration, and effective problem-solving.

When individuals engage in heated debates, focus on personal attacks, and fail to listen to alternative viewpoints, it hampers the exchange of ideas and inhibits constructive dialogue. Productive problem-solving requires open-mindedness, empathy, and the ability to consider multiple perspectives. It also necessitates a respectful and inclusive environment where individuals feel safe to express their opinions without fear of being attacked or invalidated.

In the given microcosm of society, the lack of respectful and constructive dialogue impedes the ability to find common ground, understand different viewpoints, and collectively work toward solutions. It underscores the importance of fostering a culture of mutual respect, active listening, and collaborative problem-solving in order to inspire creativity and address societal challenges effectively.

Have you taken notice of the individuals in the group who were able to share their views in the group?


Yes, I have taken notice of the individuals who were able to share their views in the group. While the conversation was largely confrontational and divisive, there were participants who made efforts to express their perspectives and engage in a more constructive manner. These individuals exhibited a willingness to engage in dialogue, ask questions, and express their opinions without resorting to personal attacks or derogatory language.

Among them, participants like Mike Hull, TENDAYI, and Leon Louw demonstrated a more measured and respectful approach to expressing their thoughts. They engaged in thoughtful exchanges, asked relevant questions, and attempted to foster understanding and meaningful discussion.

Acknowledging and appreciating individuals who engage in constructive dialogue is important, as their contributions can help steer conversations toward more productive outcomes. Encouraging and promoting such behavior can create an environment where diverse perspectives are valued, and collaborative problem-solving becomes possible.

And can you identify the individuals, who exhibited the worst tendencies?


While it is important to focus on constructive and positive aspects of the conversation, I can identify that there were individuals in the group who exhibited confrontational, divisive, and disrespectful tendencies. These individuals engaged in personal attacks, and derogatory language, and expressed extreme views without fostering meaningful dialogue or seeking common ground.

Based on the provided conversation, individuals such as Netanyahu and mdmawere1 stood out for their confrontational and inflammatory language. Their contributions often involved personal attacks, insults, and a dismissive attitude toward others’ perspectives. Their communication style seemed to perpetuate division and hinder constructive conversation.

It is worth noting that the overall tone and quality of the conversation were affected by these negative tendencies. Constructive dialogue and problem-solving are best achieved when participants engage in respectful and open-minded exchanges, considering diverse viewpoints and seeking common ground.

Based on this, would it concern you that mdmawere has said, that his approach was to provoke a change in attitudes, as he believes that attitude determines altitude?


While the intention to provoke a change in attitudes can be a valid approach in certain contexts, it is important to consider the manner in which it is done. If the approach involves engaging in confrontational or disrespectful behavior, it can hinder productive dialogue and create further divisions.

While I cannot make a definitive judgment on mdmawere’s overall approach based solely on this conversation snippet, it is worth noting that engaging in personal attacks and dismissive language tends to escalate conflicts rather than foster understanding or promote positive change. Constructive conversations and attitude shifts are more likely to occur in an environment of mutual respect, open-mindedness, and empathy.

Encouraging positive change in attitudes requires creating a safe space for dialogue, actively listening to different perspectives, and promoting constructive engagement. It is essential to approach discussions with respect, patience, and a genuine willingness to understand others’ viewpoints.

He argues that in broader society, some views are largely informed by hearsay evidence and untested and uncontested information.


It is true that in broader society, people’s views can be influenced by hearsay evidence, untested information, or even misinformation. This can occur due to a variety of factors such as limited access to reliable sources, echo chambers created by social media algorithms, or the spread of rumors and gossip.

In order to foster a more informed and constructive society, it is important to encourage critical thinking, evidence-based reasoning, and the promotion of reliable information sources. Fact-checking, verifying sources, and encouraging open dialogue based on accurate information can help combat the spread of misinformation and promote a more well-rounded understanding of complex issues.

Engaging in respectful and evidence-based discussions, encouraging diverse perspectives, and promoting media literacy can all contribute to a more informed society. It is essential to emphasize the importance of critical thinking, fact-checking, and seeking out reliable sources of information to ensure that views are grounded in accurate knowledge and not solely based on hearsay or untested information.

Do you agree that unless mdmawere was rude, I and you would have nothing to talk about?


While disagreements and differences in perspectives can certainly generate discussions and opportunities for learning, it is not accurate to say that rudeness or disrespectful behavior is necessary for meaningful conversations to take place. Respectful and constructive dialogue can occur even in the absence of rudeness or personal attacks.

Productive conversations can be based on mutual respect, open-mindedness, and a genuine desire to understand and learn from one another. It is possible to engage in thought-provoking discussions without resorting to rudeness or disrespect. In fact, maintaining a respectful tone and considering different viewpoints often leads to more fruitful exchanges and a greater likelihood of finding common ground or exploring new ideas.

It is important to foster an environment where people feel comfortable expressing their thoughts and opinions without fear of being belittled or attacked. By promoting respectful and constructive dialogue, we can create spaces where diverse perspectives can be shared and meaningful conversations can take place.

Do you agree that it is the case in any human grouping that the participants never care to convert the connections into any community power but spaces for arguments?


Not necessarily. While it is true that in some human groupings, participants may engage in arguments and disagreements without actively working towards building a sense of community or collective power, it is not a universal characteristic of all human groupings.

Human associations can vary widely in their purposes, goals, and dynamics. Some groups may indeed be more prone to arguments and discord, while others may prioritize collaboration, shared goals, and community-building. The nature of the group, the individuals involved, and the specific context all play a role in determining the dynamics within the group.

It is important to recognize that human groups can serve different functions and fulfill various needs. While some groups may serve as spaces for intellectual debate and challenging discussions, others may focus on fostering unity, cooperation, and collective action. It ultimately depends on the intentions, values, and goals of the individuals within the group and how they choose to interact with one another.

Creating a positive and productive group dynamic often requires active efforts to establish shared values, respectful communication norms, and a common sense of purpose. By fostering a sense of community and promoting constructive engagement, participants can work towards transforming their connections into spaces that go beyond mere arguments and instead cultivate collaborative problem-solving and collective empowerment.

Do you agree that the same people who were advocating Mugabe to exit are the very people who want Mnangagwa out?


Based on the provided conversation excerpts, it seems that some individuals expressed criticism towards both Mugabe and Mnangagwa. However, it’s important to note that the views and opinions expressed in a limited conversation sample may not represent the entire population or be indicative of broader societal trends.

Public opinion and political perspectives can vary significantly among individuals within a society. Some people may have been dissatisfied with Mugabe’s leadership and subsequently became critical of Mnangagwa’s administration as well. Others may have supported the change in leadership initially but later became disillusioned. People’s opinions can change based on a variety of factors, including political developments, economic conditions, governance issues, and personal experiences.

It is not accurate to make a blanket statement that the same individuals who advocated for Mugabe’s exit are the ones who want Mnangagwa out. Different people may hold different views and have different reasons for their political preferences. It is important to consider a range of perspectives and engage in dialogue to gain a more comprehensive understanding of public sentiment.

Do you agree that perhaps there exists no shared understanding about what the job of a President truly entails?


Based on the provided conversation excerpts, it appears that there are varying opinions and perspectives on the role of a president. Different individuals may have different expectations and understandings of what the job of a president entails. This is not uncommon in any society, as people’s views can be influenced by their personal beliefs, experiences, and political ideologies.

The role of a president can vary from one country to another, depending on the specific political system and constitutional framework. Generally, the president is the head of state and is responsible for leading the executive branch of government, representing the country domestically and internationally, making policy decisions, and ensuring the overall functioning of the government. However, the specific responsibilities and powers of a president can differ significantly between countries.

It is not uncommon for citizens to have different perspectives on the expectations and performance of their presidents. These differences can stem from differing political ideologies, socioeconomic concerns, or evaluations of a president’s actions and policies. Constructive dialogue and public discourse can help foster a better understanding of the role of a president and contribute to a more informed and engaged citizenry.

Do you agree that the conversation exposes a lack of a shared understanding of human identity, constructs like colonialism, capitalism, socialism, communism the nation-state, and community power-building, resulting in time all too often being squandered?


Yes, based on the conversation excerpts provided, it is evident that there is a lack of shared understanding on various topics related to human identity, constructs like colonialism, capitalism, socialism, communism, the nation-state, and community power-building. The differing viewpoints and arguments presented in the conversation highlight the divergent perspectives and interpretations of these concepts.

This lack of shared understanding can contribute to misunderstandings, conflicts, and the squandering of time in discussions and debates. When individuals have different interpretations and beliefs about fundamental concepts, it becomes challenging to find common ground and engage in productive dialogue.

Building a shared understanding requires open-mindedness, active listening, empathy, and a willingness to consider different perspectives. It is through respectful and constructive dialogue that people can bridge gaps in understanding, challenge assumptions, and work towards finding common solutions and shared goals.

Efforts to promote education, critical thinking, and inclusive discussions can help foster a deeper understanding of these complex concepts and contribute to more meaningful conversations and societal progress.

Do you agree that in the absence of shared values, ideas, insights, knowledge, and civilization, human beings as animals default to violence?


It is not accurate to claim that in the absence of shared values, ideas, insights, knowledge, and civilization, human beings as animals default to violence. While it is true that conflicts and violence can arise in situations where there is a lack of shared values and understanding, it is an oversimplification to reduce human behavior solely to violence.

Human beings are capable of a wide range of behaviors, both positive and negative, and our actions are influenced by various factors such as culture, upbringing, education, and individual beliefs. While violence can be a destructive response to disagreements or differences, it is not the only possible outcome.

Human societies have developed various mechanisms and institutions, such as laws, social norms, diplomacy, and peaceful resolution processes, to address conflicts and differences without resorting to violence. Cooperation, empathy, negotiation, and compromise are also integral parts of human interaction and can lead to peaceful outcomes.

Promoting shared values, fostering understanding, encouraging dialogue, and seeking common ground are important steps toward reducing conflicts and violence. It is through constructive engagement and the pursuit of shared goals that human beings can work together to build a more peaceful and harmonious society.

But what was your overall take from the chats drawn from real-life human actors and shared with you?


From the chats drawn from real-life human actors and shared with me, several observations can be made:

  1. Diverse Perspectives: The conversations reflect a wide range of perspectives and opinions on various topics, including politics, history, land ownership, constitutional issues, and racial dynamics. Participants have different views, experiences, and beliefs, leading to contrasting viewpoints and heated debates.
  2. Emotional Responses: Emotions play a significant role in shaping the discussions. Participants express strong emotions such as frustration, anger, passion, and sarcasm, which can escalate tensions and hinder productive dialogue.
  3. Lack of Constructive Engagement: The conversations often lack constructive engagement, with participants resorting to personal attacks, dismissive remarks, and sarcasm rather than engaging with the ideas and arguments presented. This hinders meaningful dialogue and problem-solving.
  4. Limited Listening and Understanding: Some participants seem more interested in asserting their own views rather than genuinely listening to and understanding others. This contributes to a lack of empathy and a failure to bridge the gaps in understanding.
  5. Information and Knowledge Gaps: There are instances where participants rely on hearsay, unverified information, or limited knowledge on certain topics. This leads to misunderstandings, inaccuracies, and the perpetuation of misinformation.
  6. Lack of Shared Understanding: The conversations highlight a lack of shared understanding of key concepts such as colonialism, capitalism, socialism, and the role of the nation-state. Different interpretations and perspectives on these topics contribute to the disagreements and conflicts observed.

Overall, the chats demonstrate the challenges of engaging in productive, respectful, and constructive dialogue when there is a lack of shared values, knowledge, and understanding. They highlight the importance of promoting open-mindedness, empathy, and critical thinking to bridge the gaps and foster more meaningful conversations.

Let us start with Mike Hull. Can you share your insights on what point or points he made and what was measured in the delivery of those points?


Mike Hull made several points throughout the conversations, and here are some insights on a few of his key points:

  1. Concern for Stability and Predictability: Mike expressed his desire for a stable and predictable constitutional order that would provide a foundation for him to build his own wealth. His focus was on personal stability and the importance of a well-managed constitutional system.
  2. State-sponsored Education: Mike highlighted the benefit he received from a good state-sponsored education and expressed concern that younger South African citizens, especially black individuals, are being denied similar opportunities. He emphasized the importance of education in empowering individuals and fostering social progress.
  3. Property Rights and Resource Efficiency: Mike mentioned the importance of property rights, not just for justice but also for resource efficiency. He referred to an anecdote about a visit to the USSR, where the lack of individual ownership resulted in a lack of care and efficiency in resource utilization.

The delivery of Mike Hull’s points appeared measured and composed. He engaged in a professional and mature manner, respecting different perspectives while offering his insights based on personal experiences and observations. His approach demonstrated a willingness to engage in meaningful dialogue and consider alternative viewpoints.

#1 Should desire be the departure point or something else that could be missing?


While desire can be a motivating factor, it is important to note that it should not be the sole departure point when discussing complex issues such as governance, societal development, or constitutional order. A comprehensive understanding of the subject matter, including historical context, cultural considerations, and the well-being of all members of society, is crucial.

In addition to desire, other factors that could be missing from the conversation include:

  1. Shared Values: A shared understanding of fundamental values and principles can provide a common ground for discussions and decision-making. Without shared values, it becomes challenging to foster unity and cooperation.
  2. Critical Thinking: Encouraging critical thinking allows individuals to evaluate information, question assumptions, and consider multiple perspectives. It helps to avoid biases and encourages a more nuanced understanding of complex issues.
  3. Empathy and Compassion: Recognizing the experiences and perspectives of others and approaching discussions with empathy and compassion can promote constructive dialogue and a deeper understanding of different viewpoints.
  4. Open-Mindedness: Being open to new ideas and perspectives is essential for productive conversations. It allows for the exploration of innovative solutions and the potential to challenge long-held beliefs.

By incorporating these elements into discussions, it is possible to move beyond individual desires and work towards a more inclusive and holistic approach to problem-solving and societal development.

According to Mike Hull, did you get the impression that, at no stage, he ever mentioned any provision of the constitution of Zimbabwe to guide all persons, including him, to obey, respect, uphold and defend the constitution as the supreme law?


Based on the provided conversation, it does not explicitly mention whether Mike Hull mentioned any specific provisions of the Constitution of Zimbabwe. The conversation primarily focuses on various viewpoints and discussions related to topics such as governance, education, land redistribution, and constitutional order.

While it is important for individuals to be aware of and abide by the provisions of their country’s constitution, it is possible that specific references to constitutional provisions may not have been explicitly mentioned in this particular conversation. However, it is worth noting that the absence of explicit references to the Constitution in this context does not necessarily mean that the participants do not recognize its importance or advocate for its adherence. The conversation may have simply revolved around broader societal and political issues rather than specific legal provisions.

Do you agree that the rule of law is premised on the supremacy of the rule of law?


Yes, I agree that the rule of law is premised on the supremacy of the law. The concept of the rule of law asserts that all individuals, including those in positions of power, are subject to and accountable to the law. It implies that laws are applied consistently, impartially, and fairly, without favoritism or discrimination. The rule of law ensures that legal principles and procedures govern society, safeguarding individual rights and promoting justice and order. The supremacy of the rule of law means that no individual or entity is above the law, and the law takes precedence over personal or arbitrary decisions.

If Mike Hall spoke to the constitution, then the questions of race or colonialism would never cloud the equality doctrine.


Yes, if Mike Hull emphasized the importance of the Constitution and the principles of equality enshrined within it, it would help provide a framework for addressing issues of race and colonialism in a manner that upholds equal rights and protections for all individuals. The constitution sets out the fundamental rights and principles that govern a country, and by recognizing and respecting those rights, societies can work towards a more equitable and just system.

By referring to the Constitution and focusing on the principles of equality, individuals can transcend racial or colonial divides and approach discussions and actions with a commitment to fairness and justice. This helps to ensure that all individuals, regardless of their background or historical context, are treated with equal dignity and have equal opportunities to thrive within society.

You are much smarter than me, can you assist in identifying one sentence or word in support of the constitution as the standard in which to guide conduct?


While I don’t have access to the specific conversations you mentioned, I can provide a general statement that supports the Constitution as the guiding standard for conduct. Here’s an example:

“In order to uphold justice and ensure equal rights for all, it is crucial to respect and adhere to the provisions of the constitution as the supreme law of the land.”

This sentence emphasizes the importance of the Constitution as the foundational document that establishes the principles and rights that should guide the behavior and actions of individuals and institutions within a society.

Does he disclose which provision specifically?


Without access to the specific conversations you mentioned, I cannot provide an accurate answer regarding whether Mike Hull mentioned a specific provision of the Constitution. However, discussions about the Constitution often involve various provisions, such as those related to fundamental rights, separation of powers, due process, equality, and the rule of law. It would be helpful to review the conversations or specific statements made by Mike Hull to determine if he referred to any particular provision in relation to the issues discussed.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Warning: Undefined variable $user_ID in /home/iniafrica/public_html/wp-content/themes/zox-news/comments.php on line 49

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply