Let's try using the long form.

[haele]

3. The problem with bridging discussions is that it requires all sides to be open,

Be it long form communications or not.
Here's the problem when dealing with bridging - Grievance.
Not "Who wins" but who is going to lose the most when the bridging discussion is over. If the loss seems fair and equitable, or the gains across all parties outweigh any losses, the conversation works.
The levels of grievance, legitimate or perceived, that is assuaged or mitigated in each group participating will dictate the acceptance between the parties.

Always remember - those who benefit from a privilege, whether they know it or not, are usually not inclined to share that privilege if the perception is that they might lose some benefit or the other parties may end up with what seems like giving more benefit because they're figuratively "catching up"...
...things like subsidies for education or health care in underserved or poor communities specially designed for those who didn't have access to tools that lead to better outcomes.
It's easy to inflame racial or cultural grievance holding up a few of a privileged category of people that are failing and yelling - "Is this fair? Those people getting that stuff now without having to beg, and these people still have to beg ... You're making things easier for those people"
While those people start getting attacked for trying to enter a now more equal playing field.

And the cycle of grievance begins anew.
I don't have an answer for it. Other than pointing out the social problems we have always seems to break down to what in the West used to be called "The Seven Deadly Sins".