Im not opposed to expressing ones feelings, or advocating for unemotive speech. Im opposed intentionally seeking heightened conflict via deceit and misrepresen

Im not opposed to expressing ones feelings, or advocating for unemotive speech. Im opposed intentionally seeking heightened conflict via deceit and misrepresentation. It is the political metagaming for effect and attention, an intentional manipulation of the emotional equilibrium. If you are a true believer in what you say, that is one thing. If you are intentionally being hyperbolic, overexpressing emotion, or omitting facts you know to be true, then you are engaging in political rhetoric. This is adversarial, not collaborative. When the well is sufficiently poisoned, there is no point in outside discourse, or even truth-seeking. Rhetoric is a good way to make short term gains on a topic, if you have an edge. Long term it is negative sum, as your community falls apart. I see that your sibling comment explains your position, and was insightful. I have no problem with radical self expression, or radical transparency. What I have a problem with is placing conflict and effect above truth and transparency. This is how I interpreted your comments above.