Permission withheld

If there’s no question asked, no “Please explain what vegan means”, then why volunteer an answer? Why set up a quarrel? Why screw up an otherwise friendly conversation? I suppose we do it ‘cos we’re bored, with fatuous conversing. I suppose vegans are always gunning for a dust-up. Bring the matter up. Bring it on. For omnivores, when they notice something going ‘wrong’ in a conversation, as if an “unfriendly” barb has been fired to stab them in the back ... and feelings get churned up ... and mood changes ... there’s ALARM. When we get alarmed everything pleasant, a few moments before, begins to fall apart. Nice chat, thanks for letting it deteriorate into warfare!
Past a certain point, once the Rubicon is crossed, there’s a devil-may-care smell in the air. Once you get a whiff of retaliation, conversationally the game is dead. It can end whole friendships!! One tiny thought wave! One expression.
If, on the other hand, a conversation flows with trust, with open-ended permission, it can be anything we like it to be. It’s a gloves-off affair. The way is cleared for taking a few risks ... now, that’s real conversation! But we mustn’t be deceived ... the permission must be real and mutual, and if not necessarily admitted to in so many words, sensed. Life on this level is very intuitive, yes no?
Vegans always hope to engineer real conversational events and, to be honest, they do sometimes happen. But usually only in safety zones, with close friends or family. Outside one’s circle, as strangers or just not-well-enough-known, how much trust can we expect? There’ve been so many evangelicals raving at us before, so, it’s always a calculated risk, not to slip into the proselytizer role. Essence here is in the liking ... will they like me? Or will they get uptight and run away, sometimes in tears, and be unable to face me ever again?
I’ve got a coffee mug at home, and written on it, it says: “Risk. Take calculated risks. That’s quite different from being rash”.
Being rash (as we are often, with each other) is basically not caring how you feel, or in this case ... what the bastard omnivore thinks. Now, that’s rash. And, from an animal advocate’s point of view, just sloppy tactics. It’s like rushing at the door without a pass. However, if by some magic fluke we’re allowed in (as in, permission to broach this subject) - EASY.
There’s a corner of almost anyone’s heart that’s winnable. (Unless rigid addiction prevents consideration of change).
You may say, “Don’t be ridiculous. Omnivores will never let you talk to them. Not openly, not frankly, not about any of this”. Why should they when there’s no pressure coming from any other quarter. Not from science, church, university or counter culture. “Why listen to a bloody vegan, for chrissakes? I’m okay with ANY other subject, but not this one - I’m not going to give you the satisfaction of denigrating my dinner!”