Wikipedia:Read the room

"Verb. 1. (idiomatic) to understand the emotions and thoughts of the people in the room"

— Wiktionary

These "rooms" are in very different states and call for different approaches

Are you joining in a discussion on Wikipedia? If so it might be a good idea to read the room first. If the discussion is calm and your outrage is extreme, this calls for a very different approach than if you are calm and the discussion is full of those who are outraged. Similarly if you are joining a discussion late and problems have been worked through and resolved to satisfaction of many or all, coming in and restarting the problem or upping the outrage factor is not going to be helpful or appreciated. In fact it can be harmful - if the discussion was difficult and caused other editors pain or otherwise got them upset by restarting the discussion you could be returning those editors to that emotional state. Instead, a difficult discussion that has come to a satisfactory conclusion for its participants might be a sign that you should skip that discussion or find a different approach to stating your concerns.

Are you the subject of a conduct discussion? If so it might be a good idea to continually read the room. Being dragged before ANI or some other conduct forum can be upsetting, dispiriting, frustrating, and a whole slew of other emotions. However, sometimes it turns out that it's not all that bad. Sometimes it turns out that the community doesn't agree with the accusations against you. Sometimes it's to your advantage to read the room, see that the community is headed in your favor and to just stop talking. This room which appeared so hostile is actually your friend. For the moment. Talking too much and otherwise failing to read the temperature of the discussion could change that. So as hard as it is, think about reading the room to know when to not respond or say anything.