I generally favour the Rogerian approach of always looking for the most generous interpretation of common goals and values that night be separated by language,

I generally favour the Rogerian approach of always looking for the most generous interpretation of common goals and values that night be separated by language, assumptions or unfortunate experiences that have become crystalised into generalised anecdotes. Other thinkers who've suggested similar manners to Rogers are Jurgen Habermas and Paulo Freire. These boil down to: - Be truthful - Use pragmatic epistemology, don't over-intellectualise - Expect and offer sincerity - Aim for universalisation/inclusive and non-self-contradiction - Always assume good faith - Use concrete rather than abstract statements - Good, careful humour, but don't soften hard truths - Make contributions relevant and timely - Beware self-deception and rationalisation - Use the minimum facts necessary to make any point I think if one keeps these in mind, it's always okay to offer arguments without warning, seeking permission, treading on eggshells or feeling the need to credentialise or excessively qualify a response.