On the Being of “Extreme”
The next time you call someone "extreme" or you are labelled "extreme," think about whether it is intended to be an insult or a compliment, and why.
Let’s deconstruct:
- As an Animal Person, I used to feel insulted when someone used the word extreme to describe me. But that was my choice. Considering the meaning of a communication is NOT the intention of the sender, but the message received by the recipient, each time I chose to feel insulted about being called extreme I was giving undue power to the sender of that message. In addition, I was allowing the word extreme (like the word liberal) to be construed as an insult, when it can go either way.
- If extreme means to take your position to its logical conclusion, extreme simply means you’re consistent. You’re not a hypocrite. And that, my friends, is not an insult. The trick is to always respond to the person who is using the word, in a kind way, to educate them about what the word can mean.
- Extreme also denotes being as far away from the norm as possible. Again, this can be interpreted as negative or positive. I’d be more insulted if someone called me normal than extreme, as at least the latter means you stand for something and you’re doing it with gusto.
- Extreme can also mean strict, which can be negative (as in severe) or positive (as in disciplined). Again, if you let the sender run the show, you’ll lose any debate because you’ll have allowed them to dictate your interpretation of language.
- The strategy when dealing with anyone who is attempting to pigeonhole or insult you, is to stop them and ask for a definition of the words they are using. Because most people commit rampant misusage of the English language, it’s often easy to transform the conversation from your extremism to their hypocrisy and inconsistency.
- Some simple questions for individuals either looking for someone to argue with or genuinely inquisitive, are:
- Do you believe that killing people without necessity is morally unjustifiable?
- Do you believe that killing animals without necessity is morally unjustifiable?
- If not, what’s the differentiating factor between people and animals that makes us inherently worthy of not-suffering, and them inherently deserving of torture, slaughter, subjugation, and captivity?
- Some woefully narcissistic individuals truly believe that "God" put everything on Earth for humans to use and abuse at their whim. And there’s a special place in "Hell" for them, but you’ll never get anywhere with them in a debate; their brains simply aren’t developed in that direction, and the mere hint that humans aren’t the center of the universe terrifies them. Move on to people who have a hint of a conscience that considers creatures outside the realm of the human.
- If an individual doesn’t believe in causing unnecessary suffering, and you make them aware of the suffering they are unwittingly causing, or they already know about the suffering they are causing but don’t do anything about it, that makes them a hypocrite and it makes their logic profoundly faulty. Any discussion of your extremism (good or bad) will become irrelevant, as the conversation will become about why they say they love animals or are against cruelty, yet are the direct cause of cruelty every day by continuing to pay for and demand products that are cruel, by definition. After all, once you eat animals, there’s no such thing as doing it humanely. If you’re raising them to kill them, or if they’ve lived in the wild and then you hunt them down and kill them, and there is no biological or other necessity for their meat, how is that not cruel?
The next time someone calls you extreme, use that moment as an opportunity to broaden their minds or educate them about the benefits of not being a hypocrite. It shouldn’t be that difficult to sell that one.