Being friendly, not too pushy

238:

The Animal Rights vegan position is a subject people discuss amongst themselves in order to disparage it, and work out resistant arguments to it. The stock response is that vegan activists are ‘dangerous extremists’.
We are bagged. Doors are closed to us.
But not everyone is closed minded - mainly younger people, having made fewer independent food choices, aren’t as likely to be defensive. But can they rely on information about plant-based diets?
First and foremost we must come across as well informed and concerned about people’s safety, plus have high personal standards, plus a friendly sensitivity. If we are affable enough, some chutzpah can work … as long as we maintain a sense of humour and some familiarity. I don’t try to be best buddy but I do try to be open to any views, ready to ‘take it’ as well as dish it out. People are often wanting to know what I eat, what a vegan diet is, and they’ll put up with a bit of cheek, even to the point where I can send them up for eating ‘dead animals’, but . . . there’s a hairsbreadth between friendly chat and me hitting them with a value-judgement.
I sometimes feel, out of loyalty to the animals, that I should be deadly serious and confront people where ever I can, to show how deeply I feel. But I notice that as soon as I start getting heavy they stop identifying with me. They lose interest and go on the defensive.
Passing on information laden with judgement (and statistics) is dull, and it’s confronting. The connection gets broken. Even in high disagreement I’m trying to maintain a position of equality, showing respect for all views (even wrong ones!). However far apart our views may be our feelings for each other shouldn’t be compromised, so that the human-to-human connections are kept open. We’re never anything else but two individuals chatting about the possibility of reassessing our attitudes (regarding the use of animals in our society) .
If I’m speaking to a room full of strangers, as long as some level of affection is maintained there’s a good chance for constructive, lively interaction. Once I forget the good name of the cause I’m representing communication goes dead.
The best teachers I had at school never lost sight of their students. They had an eye for trouble, they saw everything, they stood no nonsense but never withdrew their affection, and I think that’s how we should be; don’t let anyone get away with the unsustainable or rude but at the same time NO zealotry. And no cowardly tactics either - if I’m asked to explain something and I hide my lack of knowledge behind an emotional rave about animal cruelty I lose credibility. On one level people are very well informed – most adults know more or less what’s going on - but don’t know details. Presumably we do, otherwise we wouldn’t be so keen to talk about this tricky subject. Our strength is in having useful information to impart. If we can’t answer a question and we have the guts to admit it that’s impressive too. We shouldn’t be afraid to lose a skirmish or two. It’s the long term battle we’ve got ahead of us, and that’s mainly a psychological battle anyway, to come out at the end as a person other people can identify with.