“Say, have you an opinion or two?”
“Thanks for asking, so do I! Would you like to argue about them awhile?”

Some people will say “no”, and that’s that. Some topics are too personal, or too uncomfortable, or too weakly held, so one’s just not interested in a discussion. OK, one has to respect that.

Some people will say “game on”, and that’s more fun. One may stake claims, produce evidence or oratory, look for flaws in the others’ arguments (or one’s own, for bonus points). Questions may be uncomfortable, but the possibility exists for changing the participants’ mind. These are delightful for people like I.

But some people will say “ok”, make some claims, and then are shocked when someone disagrees. They amp up the rhetoric, and are shocked again that this doesn’t work: there is still someone in the social circle who doesn’t believe those self-evident truths. Despite open genuine questions, the discussion is slammed shut, the social network deloused, and the dissenters disinvited. Oh well, some people are insecure in their convictions, and welcome only like-minded feedback. The tragedy of it is twofold. It harms the long-term health of a clique if it excludes the admission of contradicting information. It wastes the time of those who participated, and maybe tossed their discussion artifacts away.

So, my humble advice is to know yourself, before you offer an opinion. If your venue offers free-form response comments, shut that off if you are comfortable only with “likes”. If you say something controversial, only feel brave if you risk falsification.