What do you do when you’re at a social engagement and
someone begins a conversation regarding a subject you feel passionate about?
How far are you willing to go to get your points across? Are you aggressive
enough to contradict the prevailing voices during the discussion, or are you the
reserved type, who would rather back off when you feel the heat? Most people
don’t expect to get embroiled in a war of words at a friendly social event.
However, we live in an era in which one’s opinion can make the difference
between making friends and losing them. That’s why it’s important to choose
your words carefully and utter them with a casual measure of persuasion.
Nevertheless, it’s easy to conclude that no matter what
you say, or believe, there will always be someone that vehemently disagrees
with you. It’s as if there are people out there that either want to be
considered relevant (think late night supposed comedians, or some cable station
commentators) and will always take the opposing side without considering a
simple discussion. With all the Charlie Kirk and Trump haters, it’s a
wonder that our country can work at all. I have respect for any of these
talk and podcast folks when they just agree to disagree without it turning into
a contest of who is right and who is wrong. Yet, given the need of some egotists
to always take charge, casual convo can morph into conflict.
Recently I read that “Joyless” Reid was slamming Erika
Kirk, when Ms. Kirk just said she would be happy to meet with her and hug
her. Reid in turn said she would never let her get near enough to hug her
or let her touch her hair (wigs) like she did with JD Vance. Was this
necessary? To me it only showed that Reid has problems with,
unfortunately, white women, and those that are younger and good looking. I
would have had much more respect for her if she just thanked Ms. Kirk and moved
on, but she couldn’t resist the temptation to strike out.
Like the old adage about misery loving company, there
will always be people who bask in negative vibes and eagerly enjoy sharing their
gloomy existence. Sadly, there are those who will twist the most innocuous statement
into a contentious dispute. You might open a discussion with, “Bob and I tried
a new restaurant last night and they served the best veal chop we’ve ever
tasted.” Suppose someone in the huddle responds with, “Oh, I heard about that
place. A neighbor of mine ate there recently and said the service stinks and the
food wasn’t worth the prices they charge.” How would you deal with such a
disputatious remark?
Did that person make you feel as though you were being
attacked? Should you come back with a hostile retort, or should you merely
swallow hard and change the subject? As for me, once I learn that an
acquaintance is prone to such hostile repartee, regarding harmless conversation,
it’s unlikely that I will be inhabiting the same orbit with that person anytime
soon. I’m not seeking acceptance of my opinions; I just would rather not deal
with the stress of having to defend that which is merely a polite exchange of small
talk at a social gathering. I can only hope that there are enough people who
reject such a depressing way of life, and vigorously start a new chapter in our
society, one in which merely chatting with each other respectfully is the rule,
rather than the exception.
No comments:
Post a Comment