Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know how collaboration is implicated, but regardless that's not the form of confrontation I'm talking about. It's confrontational because interrupters and Barkers (from the story) have to either be overpowered vocally, or asked specifically to allow for the thoughts of others ("Can I finish?"). never interrupting is a fundamentally standoffish way to interact What does this mean?
No, “interrupters” do not have to be “overpowered”. They just have to be interrupted, which is something they are expecting, and will stop talking to accommodate. The back-and-forth of a conversation (including interruptions) is a collaborative endeavor, not a “confrontation”. Something like playing improvisational music together. If someone often interrupts but will not easily allow themselves to be interrupted, or…
THAT'S THE CONFRONTATION.
If someone often interrupts but will not easily allow themselves to be interrupted, or if someone completely ignores what the other person is saying, then that is just rude, not some difference in conversational culture. That’s not what we are talking about in this discussion though.
Yes it is. That's the confrontation, again.
The rest of your comment doesn't really make a point, just value judgement on your preference for interrupting. Someone being a loudmouth or a boor is a cultural difference or "just rude," while someone who prefers not to participate in everybody talking over each other (a predictable condition) is cold, distant, judgemental, antisocial, and just plain does not want to be part of the conversation.
This is an antagonistic and bad-faith perspective.