Our ‘nasty’ side

526:

We have a tricky subject here in Animal Rights. Everything we believe in must be reflected in our own daily lifestyle, for starters, otherwise we’ll be seen as false … because we are watched; that’s the first thing people see about us. What counts is that we do make an impact with our information, but as genuine people. If someone is interested in knowing about ‘it all’ (e.g. Veganism) they’ll first look at vegans, those of us they know, and ask themselves if they think we’re ‘for real’, and if they like us.

The personal example illustrates the point – we represent ourselves as ordinary, acceptable people, who one might possibly want to know. We also represent a cause, which is why we need to be double-aware of how we present. Each of us has a personal character but we also represent a collective character. We are responsible to others connected with the cause for how we come across.

For instance, being homosexual I support the aspirations of fellow gays and want to come across as an acceptable advocate for gay rights … but that doesn’t mean I have to approve of all gay people just because they share the same sexual preference. Some are completely acceptable, others not. For instance, one doesn’t have to like ‘nasty queens’ with tongues as sharp as razors.

Likewise, being vegan, I don’t have to like the righteous or aggressive vegans just because they eat the same sort of food as me. I want to try to counter the image of that sort of vegan, so that the person doesn’t muddy the message.

It’s likely we don’t emulate someone we don’t like. For a cause like ours, it isn’t hard for me to let myself down. I do it all the time, and then I drag the cause down too. Some of us, who’re still dealing with our ‘aggro agendas’, don’t represent the Movement responsibly. We use it for our own ends, whatever they may be.

The big problem with ‘nasty’ types is that we each have a hard side which we forget to keep under control. Discussing Animal Rights is tricky because there are so many issues to learn about. I’m never keen to back away from a point just because I don’t know how to answer it. So, what I’ve noticed myself and others doing is capsizing our argument for the sake of saving face. I’ll fall back on making a moral judgement of those who don’t agree with me. And when I do that, it means I have no real interest in being open or helping others to increase their understanding, or improve my own closeness with whomsoever I’m talking to. It’s likely I’m upset when people walk away, aware that I’ve upset them, but unaware that I’ve been showing my ‘nasty’ side.