Among complaints that American culture is image-obsessed and flouts the finer nuances of literacy, words still mean something here on the editorial pages. There’s nothing like a political cartoon to offend, simultaneously, adherents of all political persuasions – but when it comes to offending people through sheer verbiage, look no further than our letters section.

Freedom of speech is freedom to offend. The First Amendment wouldn’t be necessary if all speech were always welcome. That it “might offend someone” is never a sole criterion for rejecting a letter for publication. In the world of opinion, there is very little that could be said without offending someone. Political discourse is not for the thin of skin.

Still, offending people is not the goal of the Opinion section, which is an outgrowth of the intersection of free speech and free press. “Free press” doesn’t mean we promise to print 200 words of whatever you feel like saying at no charge, especially if it is solely intended to irritate or offend. Our editorial board’s values of “open government with full public participation” and “assuring a voice to the voiceless” constitute the guiding principles of why we and other newspapers print opinions from readers.

These values would be impossible to pursue without quite common incidental offenses. Full participation in our government requires that we hear unpopular opinions, and sometimes the voiceless are rendered that way because what they have to say, however true, is unpleasant to hear. But unpopularity and unpleasantness are only byproducts of the fact that free speech allows citizens to attempt to change each other’s minds. That’s the goal.

Persuasion is an art, and the study of that art is called rhetoric. My most recent academic studies largely focused on rhetoric – and like other “specialists” I regret false disparagement of my area of study. Though the word is often used as such, rhetoric is not synonymous with “lies” or even “propaganda.” Rhetoric is concerned with changing people’s minds and behavior and can be used for good or for ill; propaganda is rhetorical by nature, but also by nature it is calculated to harness opinions en masse as a source of political power.

Rhetoric can be employed with equal force in a positive direction. Plato’s dialogues about rhetoric feature Socrates urging his student to “study souls” in order to influence them for good. You must understand another person’s background and belief in order to influence him or her. This influence need not be a wholesale conversion from one political philosophy to another – even the concession of greater “respect for opposing viewpoints” (another editorial board value) is a goal of rhetorical speech.

A classic example of the need for rhetorical understanding is in the abortion debate that frequently ravages the Roundtable page. Though the likelihood is slim that letters from either side of this issue will make full converts, I don’t think it’s a waste of space to print them or a waste of time to write them well. History applauds rhetoricians on both sides of contentious debates who identified and addressed the core issues with integrity. Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas come to mind.

So here are a couple examples of practical, rhetorical thinking:

Recognize differences in terms. As our editorial introducing the Death and Dying Dialogues pointed out, each side will choose its own terms – in that case, “assisted suicide” and “death with dignity,” among others. “Killing babies” and “reproductive rights” turn up with each abortion debate, and neither term is particularly meaningful to the side that doesn’t use it.

If writers or readers are unaware or consciously dismissive of the opposing side’s terminology, they are speaking different languages. When was the last time you were significantly moved by literature in a language you don’t know?

Avoid the shame strategy. When we use personal disparagement to encourage certain behaviors in children, it is called “abuse.” Somehow, insulting language changes from abuse to “telling it like it is” when it occurs in adult debate. While I concede adults have a greater tolerance for handling this kind of treatment without lasting injury, the reason for this is they are more calloused to its intended effect. “Shame on you” or “only idiots would think that way” seldom pierce deep enough to produce significant changes in behavior.

If your goal is not to offend but to influence, don’t be afraid to use a little rhetorical finesse with your opponents. You’ll be in good company – Lincoln and Douglas, Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson, Socrates and Gorgias – and you might open a few deaf ears.