From RightToDissent:

''On the side that dissenters do have a responsibility in how their voice is heard, somebody anonymous put it best:''

In 2005, it's apparently not clear that you have no rights on discussion boards, only privileges. So, rather than talking about right to dissent (which is a whine), talk about how to make your dissenting voice effective (which is empowering). Dissent is only effective if it is structured in a way that contributes to the outcome. There are several ways to accomplish this. The powers that be could be receptive to your dissent. You could simply force your dissent (coup d'etat). You could just demonstrate your way is better by building it (the Hacker way). Or you could be convincing. 

Making your dissent convincing requires a perceived contribution of value to the listener. If your goal is simply to validate yourself and 'score points' rather than contribute value to the discussion, you will be ignored, since you are only trying to take value not give it. This is why providing a contrasting view is best done when teaching rather than berating, as your point is much more likely to be considered if it is seen to be helping the listener achieve their desired outcome. Conversely, opening a conversation with an attack is a sucker punch. This immediately destroys trust, which distorts the perception of value. It also distorts that actual value and point, as the unfocused anger will warp any discussion to absurdity. It takes at this point a strong person to read through all the unnecessary angry bullshit to get to the point, as well as a patient person to wait for the actual point, as well as an empathic person to read between the lines. We all know this. The trouble is that not many people at any given time are both strong and patient and willing to expend their energy on the 'dissenter' when they are busy focused on their own business. A dissenter who has nothing constructive to offer will be ignored. 

''Of course, this completely ignores whether dissenters have rights.  Instead, it suggests a pragmatic dissent where the aim is not to dissent but to secure Victory -- either a limited victory (sometimes called collaboration), or a more complete Victory.''


See also MeatBall:FairCriticism.