Wrt "other sides" and the mechanics of engaging therewith: I have to accept that the person on the other side of the conversation feels that I'm an animal of lower fundamental intelligence and agency, deserving not of dignity, but confinement, if not slaughter. The conversation can't continue unless I accept this on its face and try, still, to reach common ground. I'm sure you can understand that this is not a trivial ask. And while I don't think the same of him, a commensurate concession of ego would go a long way toward creating in him the mindset of mutual solution-making rather than final solution-imposing.

This is a great point. I suppose my hope is that by being less shutdown-offended yourself, you can have an open heart to those that are shutdown-offended. Because engaging with such people is crucial to understanding what’s actually going on (rather than just lobbing facts and conflicting histories back and forth). Trauma is real!

Thanks for the reply! For what it's worth. After reading what I wrote again I think that this is a better way to put what I was saying: (I was going to edit my original, but I'll post it here since you've already replied.)

In terms of improving discussion by differentiating between disagreement and offense:

I think that in order for that to work, it is important that offense is treated as valid and worth addressing. First because, as the article points out, offense is often based on valid fears and concerns. Second because otherwise people will feel the need to present their offense as disagreement in order to get it taken seriously.

+1 !!!

Admittedly, I wrote this post 3 years ago when I was seeking clarity around disagreement during a wild time. Re-reading it now, in yet another wild time (3 years "wiser" aka having learned how to change a diaper or two), I missed out on compassion for those who are offended. Like you said, if it's important to find a mutual way forward, then it is also worth addressing the fears + emotional lives of those that are offended.