We are all tempted by the idea that what we say to other people - perhaps in response to a question - might influence them for the better. For instance, the idea that when somebody says something about the birdemic, the peck, antiracism of climate-emergency-warming-change; we might respond with some phrase that does real goo.
Thus we are tempted to use rhetoric - which, I take it, is language designed to influence other people in a particular direction; language designed to affect others as desired.
For example, rhetoric might be defensive language designed to escape from the feared consequences of non-compliance with social norms; or evangelical language to awaken another person to the truth specifically, or to the Good more generally.
Evangelical rhetoric may be highly-motivated; but even them it is prone to be manipulative and to treat other people as interchangeable units - rather than as individuals. Of course, the particular 'other person' might not be known to you - and therefore can only be treated as a stereotype of one sort or another.
My aim - which I seldom achieve - is deep honesty or silence.
Silence is the honest response appropriate to presumptively hostile persons (especially those on the other-side, against God) - which nowadays is the majority of human interactions (especially in the workplace).
Deep honesty is trying to answer the underlying question, not just the specific question; to address the assumptions behind the question.
For example, an honest answer to 'Have you had the birdemic peck?' might be just a flat 'No'. Without explanation or excuse. That might, itself, lead to something.
Or it might be 'No - it's too dangerous' (or some elaboration thereof).
But the deeply honest response might be that you regard the whole birdemic business as an Evil Lie; or that that you believe the peck to be, in some way, an instrument of evil in the spiritual war against God.
Thus, to provide a deeply honest answer almost always requires a pause for thought - to take account of the personal and situational context; and then an answer of a few sentences, at least.
That in itself means that silence, or no answer at all ('I don't want to talk about it, thanks.') may be the only practical response in most ordinary social situations.
Yet even this kind of response is very unusual, and perhaps difficult, in 'normal' social interactions. Not to reply instantly to every question needs forethought, and - probably - would need to be practiced a few times before becoming natural and spontaneous.
Again, a pause for thought, interrupting the usual rapid to-and-fro of casual social chit-chat, would seem to be necessary.
