> you must communicate them in contexts where there's a real chance of them being crossed I think this falls under de-escalation, and there's lots of approache

> you must communicate them in contexts where there's a real chance of them being crossed I think this falls under de-escalation, and there's lots of approaches. Communicating boundaries, or stating if-thens, can be an escalation in some situations. Steering the conversation/situation away works in some situations. Non-verbal communication can work, and be more tactful: it allows an accidentally-offensive person to recognise, pull back and show support. This smoothes out conversations, and is common enough that it's expected for many. For groups of people that use non-verbal communication less, then perhaps explicitly stating things is the only option. But don't be surprised if non-verbal communicators interpret it as combative! "Wow, Foo got upset quickly at me, and in front of others. [Why didn't Foo make it clearer that they were getting uncomfortable [using non-verbal methods]]".