Taboo

If omnivores have no time for all this ‘vegan nonsense’ and show it by their uninhibited eating of animal foods, it trivialises what vegans consider is probably the most important consideration of life - cutting out the endemic violence of attacking animals. So, between the omnivore and the vegan we have attitudes which are poles apart. To us this particular attitude of theirs is perhaps the most insensitive characteristic in them we know, and by extension it’s the same insensitivity of the people we don’t know. If pressed they’d probably all say veganism is nonsense. Naturally that makes vegans feel alienated. We aren’t even being taken seriously, and that’s what each of us want most of all ... and so it goes on from there ... we feel miffed ... we start to think negatively ... towards omnivores ... and we proceed to fuel a fire which is already burning hot.
By upping the ante, on this question of animal rights, bringing the matter up, we may think we are playing the game of ‘getting the juices flowing’. We want to get a good argument rolling. But at what cost? The damage caused when ‘the game’ is not mutually permitted makes it a no-game.
Because this subject is tabooed in our society (almost everyone happy to accept it as a taboo, to protect favourite foods, mainly) unwilling participation is off limits. If the discussion of Animal Rights is not exactly welcome then a vegan tirade isn’t going to help matters; not when omnivores believe vegans just want to make them feel like cornered rats.
No permission - big rap over the knuckles, for crossing the boundaries. It’s like sexual assault - we have ‘touched inappropriately’. The omnivore is so confident (in their majority attitude about eating animals) that they can laugh, knowing their ‘joke’ will be shared by fellow loyal omnivores. Group derision is the main punishment here ... for simply crossing the taboo lines. And it’s therefore where trouble begins. From this point everything deteriorates. Some daring ideas, some abusive words - whatever we say in anger leaves everyone feeling angry and wanting to retaliate.
However, that all changes when a serious question gets asked. But even a question can be deceptive. We still have to gauge it carefully. And make it short and sharp. I’d even suggest changing the subject, away from animally, diety things, purposely, to discover if it’s a genuine question. Ultimately we need to know if a person is interested or just being polite. If there is a genuine question, a sort of permission is being granted by it.
Not a permission for sermonising. It’s usually meant as a specific or fairly superficial, casual query, requiring a similarly to-the-point answer. Vegans tend to divert. We’re eager to go on interesting tangents (“Did you know ...”), rambling on with uncalled for facts. With each ‘fact’ we mean to inspire and educate but with each fact we also know we’re trying to hammer in another nail ... in the coffin of the omnivore’s lifestyle. And therefore we take advantage. We go on longer than we should.
But, if there’s genuine interest, a genuine need to ‘get to the bottom of this one’, we can engage in a subject which never really gets a proper airing, mainly for reasons noted above.
Once we have a discussion going, and we’re clear about what we’re talking about, then we embark on a serious discussion and it has a subject-heading almost. Then we are at a chess board, each giving as good as we get. It’s a stouch, a disagreement, a fundamental difference in attitude. Perhaps it’s even an extreme difference of opinion we’re unleashing. But it doesn’t matter how extreme our differences ... as long as it’s done with personal respect, mutual respect. Without that there’s no real discussion going to take place, on any subject at all. Without permission from each side, for the level of discussion we are willing to engage in then it’s only an ago game, and with every word we utter doing incomparable damage.