I’m not talking about “devil’s advocate” or any of that kind of thing. I agree that devil’s advocate is a horrible thing to do. Or otherwise treating it as a game or an opportunity for debate practice.
It’s not ok to treat things as a rhetoric context unless everyone involved consents to that. But substantive disagreement is a different thing.
I’m talking about when people actually disagree, for actual reasons. When they’re listening, taking the content seriously, and finding a significant point of disagreement that they think is worth mentioning.
(It’s important to be careful about this, and something being “just your opinion” doesn’t mean that others are bound to respect it. And there are times when you will rightfully be slammed for condescending to people on a topic you’re not informed about. Substantive disagreement is a different thing).
Someone being in pain doesn’t necessarily mean they are right, especially when they are advocating something specific. Finding disagreement triggering also doesn’t mean that the person getting triggered is right.
There are people I block because their comments to some of my entries are triggering for me in ways I can’t handle constructively. That doesn’t mean that I’m right, or that they should stop saying what they think. (I think they’re wrong and that they should change their views, but that’s a separate issue.)
Some things that are really important to talk about are also excruciating. That doesn’t mean that no one can or should disagree with anyone who is suffering.