Some time ago (24 August 2011), Daniel posed the question here:
One of the key aspects of reframing the discussion and allowing our voice to be heard is to not speak in the defensive. Since this is expected, even in the question-and-answer format, speaking up and out without necessarily answering anyone becomes very important. Beyond that, I think it is necessary to use all of the emotions and rhetorical devices that are normally disallowed us in the “polite” context of our adopted culture (this is perhaps worth another topic….)
I would like to open the discussion on this.
- What are the emotions and rhetorical devices not normally allowed?
- What kind of success and difficulty has there been with resorting to these?
- Although polite conversation has not “got it done” for us, what are ways to negotiate the (ad hominem) reply that “our” hatefulness (or anger or lack of “civility”) are merely being “answered” by similar hatefulness, anger, or lack of civility.
- What do alternatives to “polite conversation” look or sound like?
- What is missing from the above that is needed to fruitfully discuss and explore this?
*cocks an ear to listen