I'm sorry but...
Principles to Avoid It All Kicking Off: Part 4 (ft. Ants)
This article is part of the Principles To Avoid It All Kicking Off series. In the first three posts we explored key steps to take at the outset of a discussion. We covered depersonalising issues (establishing the object of discussion rather than making it about the person), defining the nature of sticking points (identifying when competing values are at play), and establishing shared expectations (setting the type of discourse needed). The next three instalments address those critical moments when, despite our best efforts, someone says something inflammatory.
EXPERIENCE TEACHES PATTERN RECOGNITION. In the split second between inviting the participant to speak and their first word we realise where they are heading, how it will be received, and that it’s too late to stop them saying those three telltale words:
“I’m sorry but...”
By now the rest of the room has caught on and awaits the inevitable:
…people who deny climate change are basically murderers.
…if you’re poor it’s your own fault - anyone can succeed with effort
…anyone still eating meat doesn’t care about their grandchildren.
…this generation is too soft - they need to toughen up.
…if you don’t like diversity, leave - this is a multicultural country now.
…parents who vaccinate haven’t done their research
…free speech’ is just code for ‘I want to be offensive without consequences’.
…smacking worked for generations - now kids are out of control.1
No crystal ball needed. Unless you do something this is going to go one of three ways:
Condemnation & Revenge. “You can’t say that!!!” “Yes they can!!!” Discussion fragments into camps. The original concern disappears entirely.
Ridicule. The participant feels mocked, retreats into silence or doubles down. The group learns: don’t say anything that sounds silly.
Isolation. Uncomfortable silence, averted eyes. The participant senses they don’t belong. The workshop becomes careful performance.
What has actually just happened?
The participant made an ‘inflammatory’ comment. A remark that will inflame, or ‘set fire’ to, the discourse. If you’ve been following this series you’ll also notice that all the examples above fall foul of at least one of the first three principles, they variously personalise issues, collapse complex value tensions into simple moral pronouncements, or approach topics that require deliberation/ critical discussion as if they’re settled debates to be won.
Why did they say it?
“I’m sorry but...” - those words signal awareness. They know what’s coming might not be welcome, that they are possibly transgressing expectation. So why say it?
Sometimes they genuinely believe it. Corporal punishment IS acceptable to them. They’re not testing the waters - they’re stating their view.
Sometimes they lack better language. The concern is real but the only framing available comes from talk radio, social media, their uncle at Christmas. “This generation is too soft” is the template they have for “I don’t know why I keep upsetting people.”2
Sometimes they’re testing whether they belong here. “Will this group let me speak about what I actually worry about, or must I perform acceptable opinions?”
Sometimes it’s proving a point. “I’ll say it provocatively so when you reject it, I can confirm: ‘See? You can’t say anything anymore.’”
Whatever the motive, we need a way to address the inflammatory framing without sinking the discussion - we need something ‘anti-inflammatory’.
Reframing
As ever, I’m playing with words here. ‘Causing anger’ is only one meaning of inflammatory. The other, probably more familiar, is medical: inflammation is the immune system’s response to a perceived threat. Seen this way, the comment unsettles the group’s equilibrium and provokes an inflammatory response.
When someone says, “if you’re poor it’s your own fault” the issue isn’t the argument itself,3 but what the phrasing triggers: ridicule, distancing, condemnation. These are immune responses - the group detecting a threat and mobilising to protect itself. But inflammation, even when justified, can sometimes obscure what’s underneath. In the body, too much inflammation can make it hard to see the underlying injury; in groups, a heated response can make it harder to notice whether there’s a valid point buried in the remark, even if it’s tangled up with something that understandably sets people off.
The facilitator’s job, then, is to help the group target its response appropriately. Yes, something needs addressing - the aggressive phrasing, the absolute language, the provocative solution. But there’s also something worth preserving: participation IN the discussion rather than casting participants OUT. An anti-inflammatory approach is subtler than pouring a bucket of water over a fire - it calms without extinguishing.
Strategic euphemism
One way of accepting an inflammatory or extreme statement whilst reframing it into something the group can explore together is strategic euphemism.
Participant:
I’m sorry but smacking worked for generations - now kids are out of control.Facilitator:
Accepts/validates - Thank you.
Depersonalises - Let’s look into this.
Reframes euphemistically - Punishments, disincentives
Opens to rest of the group - Hands up if you think there should be some sort of consequence for bad behaviour.
You didn’t correct the participant. You didn’t explain why hitting children is wrong. You didn’t praise or criticise. You took the contribution, identified a legitimate concern beneath the provocative expression, and offered it back to the group in a form that invites building rather than battling.
The technique has three moves:
Validate the contribution. Acknowledge that something real has been expressed. Not necessarily that the specific claim is valid, but a member of the group has offered something.4
Reframe through euphemism. Transform the inflammatory specific into an explorable general. “Smacking worked” becomes “there should be some sort of consequence” The provocative solution drops away; the genuine concern about boundaries and self-control remains.
Open to the group. Invite others to add to this reframed concern. You’re not settling the question - you’re creating space for multiple perspectives to emerge (which will no doubt include consideration of the limits of ‘consequences’).
Let’s look at another:
Participant:
I’m sorry but... anyone still eating meat doesn’t care about their grandchildren.Facilitator:
Accepts/validates - Ok, here’s an aspect we haven’t thought about.
Reframes euphemistically - What we do now may adversely affect our descendants in the future
Opens to rest of the group - Who thinks this is a factor we should be considering?
The character assassination (”doesn’t care”) is removed. The absolutism (”anyone still eating meat”) becomes “what we do now” and “adverse effect” The discussion can now explore the actual tension - between knowing something matters and being able to change behaviour - without defending or attacking individuals.
When to use it
This isn’t about treating all views as equally valid, or avoiding moral judgment. Some positions are wrong.5 When someone denies another person’s humanity, you intervene directly - that’s not negotiable. But for inflammatory statements that fall short of that line, your job in workshop settings isn’t to deliver judgment on contested positions - it’s to create conditions where genuine exploration can happen.
And you’re not immune to the inflammatory response either. Sometimes the strongest reaction comes from the facilitator themselves - the urge to correct, to educate, to shut it down. That’s understandable. But when you respond inflammatorily, you model that disagreement = attack, that the room isn’t safe for genuine exploration, that performance is safer than honesty.
If someone needs to be removed for safety reasons, remove them.6 But if they’re testing whether difficult things can be explored here, the euphemistic reframe gives them - and you - a way to stay in dialogue rather than descend into quarrel.
They might genuinely believe corporal punishment is acceptable. The rest of the group might find that view abhorrent. That’s a real disagreement. But if the discussion becomes a referendum on a single contentious position, someone leaves - physically or emotionally - and the conversation ends.
The euphemism gives them a way to stay in the room. Not by avoiding the disagreement, but by redirecting it to shared territory: how do we actually help young people develop self-control? Now everyone can contribute. The disagreement about methods remains, but it’s explorable rather than tribal.
Strategic euphemism requires judgement. You’re looking for the legitimate concern beneath inflammatory expression. Sometimes there isn’t one - the statement really is just an attack. But more often, particularly in workshop settings where people have chosen to be present, there’s genuine worry or frustration underneath clumsy language.
The technique only works when your intent is genuine. If you’re performing tolerance whilst internally dismissing the participant, they’ll sense it. If you’re using euphemism to avoid engaging with difficult topics, the group will notice. The reframe must be offered with real curiosity about the concern beneath the provocation.
You’re also modelling something crucial: that difficult contributions can be engaged with generously. That exploration is possible without someone being called out or cast as villain. That we can separate what someone said from who they are, and what they’re worried about from how they expressed it.
Bonus: About those ants…
Optional reading — a deeper dive into the hidden mechanics of reframing.
You might be wondering about the subtitle. Here’s what else is happening when you reframe through euphemism.
Ants don’t have leaders telling them where to go. Instead, they leave pheromone traces as they move. When an ant finds food, its return journey strengthens that trail. Other ants follow the strongest trails. Paths that lead nowhere gradually fade as the chemical trace disperses. The colony coordinates through these indirect signals - a process called stigmergy.
Your reframe is doing something similar. You’re not correcting the participant (direct control). You’re modifying the conversational environment. You’ve taken an inflammatory ‘trace’ and transformed it into one that others can build on.
The reframe creates a trail both ‘sides’ can follow. The person who raised the contentious issue doesn’t have to defend their position or abandon their concern. The person who finds the issue abhorrent doesn’t have to attack or tolerate it. They can both follow the trail toward ‘ whether or not there should be some sort of consequence for bad behaviour.’
Neither side had to build this path. It emerged from your reframing. And crucially, it preserves everyone’s face. The speaker is vulnerable. They’re exposing themselves. If the group attacks, they lose face and either retreat (lesson learned: stay quiet) or double down (position hardens).
The euphemistic reframe preserves their face whilst removing the inflammatory framing. Their concern was heard. They don’t have to defend the initial phrasing. They can contribute to the broader discussion. The speaker can stay in the conversation. The group can engage without endorsing what was said.
When you consistently reframe inflammatory contributions this way, you establish a pattern. The group learns: difficult things can be said here, but they’ll be engaged with generously. Provocative expressions will be interpreted charitably. We look for what’s underneath rather than what’s on the surface.
This is collective attunement - the group learning how to be together, not through rules about acceptable language, but through repeated experience of what becomes possible when contributions are reframed rather than rejected.
It’s also a rebuttal to zero-tolerance approaches. Removing participants who use “wrong” language doesn’t build capacity for dialogue. It just teaches people to perform acceptable opinions whilst holding their real concerns in private - or to wait and express them in spaces where they’ll be radicalised rather than constructively challenged.
Strategic euphemism is one of a number of ways to prevent the slide into quarrel. It keeps discourse within the boundaries we established - whether critical discussion, inquiry, or deliberation - even when contributions threaten to break those boundaries.
I write the newsletter from various coffee shops, imagining I’m chatting with my subscribers over a cappuccino. So if you ever find an issue particularly helpful or thought-provoking, you can now literally buy me the coffee that will fuel the next one. This approach keeps the newsletter free and accessible for everyone while still allowing you to support the work when it resonates with you.
To cite this article:
Burns, B (2025) I’m sorry but.... The Philosophical Theatre Facilitator: www.philosophicaltheatrefacilitator.substack.com
© Brendon Burns 2025
Sources:
Heylighen, F., 2022. Human Stigmergic Problem Solving. In: S. Cifor and M. Ratto, eds. Cultural-Historical Perspectives on Collective Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp.120–146.
Mouffe, C., 2018. For a left populism. London New York: Verso.
Versions for all political persuasions and demographics are available!
“This does not mean condoning the politics of [populist parties], but refusing to attribute to their voters the responsibility for the way their demands are articulated.
I do not deny that there are people who feel perfectly at home with those reactionary values, but I am convinced there are others who are attracted to those parties because they feel they are the only ones that care about their problems.
I believe that, if a different language is made available, many people might experience their situation in a different way and join the progressive struggle.” Chantal Mouffe (2018)
Which could be met with a counterargument or an examination of the evidence to support the claim.
This is why value neutral validations are preferred. “Thank you” rather than “Great” or “Absolutely” which implies agreement with the claim.
Positions that are factually incorrect, logically fallacious, or predicated on the denial of someone’s humanity.
In reality this is incredibly rare. I’ve worked in some fairly gritty contexts and have only had to do this once in 30 years. That said, I’ve also seen colleagues bring this type of conflict into being by poor choice of stimulus, framing, or their own bias.