Well I guess when I say 'effective socializing' in this context, I mean the ability to communicate with differing opinions in a friendly and sociable way. I'll accept that that isn't everyone's 'effective socializing,' but it certainly is to me.

My POV here is that I could have opinion X, and you could have opinion Y, and they could be patently dissimilar. And on just seeing you have opinion Y, I might think, "Man fuck you and fuck your stupid ideas!" but of course, that's not really going to change any minds. However, if I do what I would consider to be 'effective socializing,' we might be able to combine our thoughts into opinion Z. Which would be great, because in accepting my flaws I would form a new opinion that would free me of my desire to shout you down. That would be 'effective socializing.' An exchange of ideas that leaves either participant more enlightened than before.

Like in my other comment on your comment. It eventually works around to, 'You're right,' followed by a concession. I'd do something like to show that I don't agree with you completely, but that you made valid points. I think that one way to facilitate open conversation is to avoid completely invalidating someone. If you express an opinion that suggests that someone's opinion is strictly less valid than yours, you trigger an ego war where nobody is listening. And I would consider that ineffective.

The point the guy up above was making about self-censoring is something I agree with. You type up your shitty inflammatory opinion and you look for that parts where it's too disrespectful or whatever, and you fix it up. There's nobody forcing me to post the comment, after all. I may as well take my time and express the 'best' version of it that I can.