No. I'm getting pretty tired of the notion that the only valuable discourse is pleasant, up-beat, and optimistic. This notion attempts to stifle entire swaths of the emotional spectrum and has at it's heart censorship based on a mainstream aversion to anything that smacks of confrontation or conflict. Up with opinionated, confrontational speech.
I disagree. If you look at what happens to the brain when it gets angry, nuance is lost in favor of over-simplified black-and-white thinking. I do agree with you that sharing conflicting points of view is good. Too much passion, however, can cloud reason.
To clarify I'm not advocating for rage-filled screeds as a viable method of communicating nuanced information, or even as a viable method of communication. As you said sharing conflicting viewpoints is valuable. I take issue with the suggestion that this is only valuable if the conflict is framed in appealing language or "toned down" to "acceptable" levels, whatever those are. Conflict is ok. Resolving it is how we get shit done.
