Only jokin’

275:

When I meet an adversary and discuss my opposite views, concerning the eating of animals, I’m at a disadvantage because I know that I hold such a minority view. It’s almost impossible to win the ‘animal argument’ if my opponent feels supported by the dominant culture.
For me, not blessed with a brilliant wit, if I try making a hasty response I usually blow it. I see the attack coming out of left-field, I see it has a distinctly personal tone and that it seems like a challenge. In other words I don’t see any signs of us heading into a fair-minded debate, quite the opposite in fact.
Maybe I detect a simple comment, couched as a joke, and that it’s meant to give a benign impression, whilst a sharp thrust is made, in and out in a flash ... and no room for any detailed discussion. The sharp comment, fired off at ‘joke- level’, is not meant to be shrugged off ... but it’s difficult to respond without firing back an aggressive reply … and in that split second, as I bite back, I know I’ve been trapped. I’ve been manipulated into the very thing they needed – my aggressive response is the coup de grace of the ‘joke’, and it’s this that ‘turns’ the atmosphere.
I’m made to look bad, as if I took things further than necessary. The joking carnivore is outraged at the thought that their comments could be taken so personally. “It was meant as a joke. Have you no sense of humour?”
By taking umbrage, by being hypersensitive to a bit of light hearted banter, I show how ready I am to quarrel over this issue. It’s proof (to my adversary) that I’m neither cool nor collected nor a compassionate person, nor as non-violent as I’d like to appear to be. I look like a loser who seems to have gentle views about animals but not about people.
They win!!