A reminder that these assertions are, of course, subjective; though I present them nonetheless, if for no other reason than to elicit constructive debate, and not to cause unnecessary 'polarisation' --a term seemingly synonymous with the current zeitgeist-- as is the developing reality with so many of today's issues.
I often question, in how best to 'deliver' information to opposing recipients; without the forthcoming, and conflicting 'right' or 'wrong' dichotomy when an 'accepted' principle is inevitably challenged. Can factual information not be that? Information derived from supporting evidence, and not confused as an absolute? Why must something be entirely one thing, or the other? The words 'right, and 'wrong', or 'this', and 'that' are too readily distributed amongst discussions of how things 'were', 'are', and 'should' be.
To address the individual, arguably, would be more effective than a group; for the latter would require over-coming the strength of evolved, animalistic 'tendencies'. As people rarely act unless such an action is proven socially acceptable. There is much danger within challenging the accepted 'order', granted, though progress takes root within the ability, and act of challenging, and the latter takes courage. Often this begins with singular motivation, and the volition of the individual to provide example.
'Delivery' seems to be quite crucial in how an individual (or group) decides to receive, process, and react to such stimuli. If a challenge (on any level is felt) the basal response within such an aggressive species, would be, presumably, to act in accordance with one's 'nature'; to respond with aggression. An aggression once physical, now intellectual, though often emotional (with the latter governing the resultant actions, derivatives of the initial thoughts as invoked).
Why should we accept an inability to recognise that emotions often stem from a considered thought. Should we not question the validity (and usefulness) of an emotion if it impairs one's ability to act in accordance with 'reason'? Should we not return to the thought at it's origin, and choose to act from a state of control, and not on the primal tendencies of the 'instinctive' (the basic response as derived from primitive instincts) or the 'instinctual' (motivated by deeper emotional 'drives'). Are we so unlearned, as a species?
Should the decision to react 'aggressively' be reached (to challenge with emotion, as opposed to a 'detached' questioning) than often the individual will seek to lessen the person's standing, by means of targeting areas often irrelevant to the subject presented. Such redirection, avoidance, and mitigation tactics should not be encouraged. Perhaps it is the very language of the individual; perhaps it is within the construction/form of the argument. Whilst I recognise the importance of both complexity, and simplicity; unless it is the latter of the two, the message is deemed disagreeable, the person, pretentious, the words, rhetoric. If the presentation --the 'form'-- is a challenging one, than I would encourage it to be met with a renewed, or discovered comprehension. I would argue there is great beauty within complexity (as there is simplicity) though given the 'choice', I would assume the former. Existence, is surely complex, so much as it is intelligible to humanity. Should we not celebrate humanity's curiosity, and continued enthusiasm for discovery amongst the great phenomena (and the details inherent?) Recognising the importance of 'simplicity' in order to govern, and provide structure to the unknown (the origin, arguably, of much fear) I disagree with the demonetisation of complexity, that the 'Devil is in the details'; though such categorisation is simplistic in itself, for conversely 'God is in the detail' also.
If you are unable to understand the validity of such an assertion (lacking the capacity to do so) it does not mean the statement is incomprehensible; though it likely reveals your arrogance in the assumption that you are 'correct', and others are not. Your response is likely an emotionally derived one --perhaps anger, amongst others-- as your intelligence is challenged, and brought into question. For what graver an insult is there than to expose another as misinformed, or inadequate; perhaps under-minding their ability to reason, and commit to logic. Though perhaps this is also subjective, it seems likely that it is.
When accepted beliefs are challenged, yes this incurs difficulty, if for no other reason than it presents an affront to one's own sensibilities, questioning one's understanding whilst simultaneously exposing, presenting, and forcing the confrontation of the fearful unknown. A fear birthed from the revelation, and presence of such an unknown. Though are ignorance, stubbornness, and a reluctance to adapt, appropriate answers when the borders of reason, and knowledge migrate? Has humanity not proven its ability (and willingness) to challenge, test, and further themselves when such actions develop beyond simple necessity? How can we accept that what we are, is as it should be? The 'universe' does not, When we remove egotism, and a self-assured arrogance, when we destroy comfort, and replace it with progress; perhaps then will our purpose to be, and to act, develop the clearer.