VeganVanguard.com - The Know-Nothing Approach _________________________________________________

Encounter of the Third Kind: The Know-Nothing
By Jeremy Alcorn

For what ever motivation, those violently opposed to animal rights, offer a deluge of slanderous (often stereotypical) comments, attacks on character, and written depictions of violent imagery in response to what is often legitimate discourse submitted by the animal rights movement. Accordingly, I term these individuals “know-nothings”, simply because they choose not to engage in a rational exchange of ideas, or they are mentally incapable of such an exchange. Not excluding the fact that such know-nothing remarks are entirely unnecessary, they may also be counterproductive to the influence of an argument that a legitimate meat-eater may be trying to advance (though this aspect is of little concern for the activist). Many animal rights advocates expect such idiocies and child-like remarks. If you choose to argue against meat eaters you should expect replies utilizing this intellectually void approach.

It is useful to note that the purpose of such statements must also bear the strain of criticism as well. For instance, maybe these know-nothing statements are wielded with the primary intent of causing offense. If this is true, such motives and tactics should prove erroneous and ineffectual. Let us first address the depiction of violent imagery. The statement may mention how the next time that person goes out hunting they are going to kill a baby deer (fawn) and then slaughter its whole family (even though deer do not live in conventional family units), or how they are going to sit down to a meal with some variety of dead animal. It may openly involve the killing of animal rights activists, a statement that may very well be representative of the blood sport mindset.

As humans we were raised and continue to live in a culture that embraces maliciousness and wanton killing of animals on a daily basis; even more succinctly such things are practiced on a second by second basis in the slaughter industry. Therefore, such atrocities are not foreign to us. Personally, there is seldom, if ever, a day that the plight of animals does not occur in my mind. For many other activists it is the same for them as well. Because of such experiences it seems extremely unlikely that any attempt utilizing this approach will cause much excitement on the part of the activist. Still, a meat eater may say something that strikes an emotional cord with an activist. If this does occur the activist should take care not to spout off something equally as useless as the comment which spurred that emotion. This is what a know-nothing wants as it is likely the only way they can aptly argue. If the activist is in a person to person argument keeping cool may be more difficult than if the conversation is occurring through another medium, such as a forum on the Internet. At any rate, an activist should properly frame the intent of the attacker and the impulse to respond hastily will most likely reside.

Slanderous statements and attacks on character are another popular method employed by the know-nothings. These statements, I believe, intend to illicit irrational responses and serve as a diversion to the real issue. Often a barrage of intellectually mute responses will pour in after a thoughtfully orchestrated statement offered by an animal rights activist. Many of these responses are the product of male know-nothings and are in reference to the activist (if male) being homosexual. Such blatant misconceptions indicate that some know-nothings feel they are participating in a “manly” activity and a refusal to kill a non-human animal or consume their flesh indicates traits know-nothings view as negative and feminine. Not surprisingly such a patriarchal view often leads to other phobic reactions and sexist remarks. However, those who offer such “off the cuff” remarks must be placed in the proper framework, for the traits needed to be an animal rights activist is very much exclusive to the traits possessed by meat eaters. To partake in the activity of eating and killing animals is to partake in an activity of normalcy, because if done legally their actions are permitted by society. There is nothing about being a meat eater or a hunter that necessitates a feeling of separateness from the will of society. They “fit in” and are happy to do so. However, for the activist the same cannot be truthfully said. It has rarely, if ever, occurred that a person with differing beliefs outside of the host culture has been openly accepted and treated as if their beliefs held virtue, reason, and plausibility. Therefore, activists by the very beliefs they espouse have to hold a sense of self-worth in their ideas and in their person, as society is yet unyielding in its denial of our ideas. Because of this strong sense of self, the majority of activists should be unaffected by such slanderous remarks and attacks on their character. Activists don’t “fit in” to societies current expectations, and they bravely and openly accept such a position in order to foster positive social change. Very simply, we have an unwavering knowledge of who we are and what we stand for, such attacks should be expected and leave us undaunted as we carry out our duties.

The other reason for such attacks is one of diversion. Simply stated, some know-nothings have no skills to debate or the faculties with which to do so if they wanted. Resultantly, they will attack whatever they can find or perceive about an activist to obscure the message conveyed. This ranges from name calling such as “fanatic”, “zealot”, and “terrorist”, to asking false or loaded questions, to discussing something completely isolated from the original topic. By doing this know-nothings feel they are debating, when in reality they are wandering off topic (the question is whether it is intentional). The asking of a biased or loaded question serves to give the know-nothing something to argue and attack the activist about. It is loaded or biased because the meat eater will have something to attack the animal rights advocate about, the question is merely a pretext to argue and the answer either way is irrelevant. An example of a false question would be “How much have you contributed to helping wildlife?” This is based on the bias that no activist helps wildlife through monetary means. If an activists answers with a dollar amount below that of what the “conservationist” (I employ that term loosely) purports to have donated then the activist is chastised, however if the amount is above that donated by the “conservationist” then the animal rights activist is presumed to be lying. Also, statements, as such serve to divert attention from the know-nothing and their activities back onto the animal rights advocate. It is therefore an attempt to dodge the issue.

Another tactic for a know-nothing is to critique grammar or spelling when an activist submits their comments in writing (Internet, e-mail, newspaper). It may be that know-nothings feel they are undermining your argument by correcting your spelling or grammar. If they can find fault in the mechanics of an activist’s writings they will often focus on this issue rather than the topic presented. The only way to direct their attention towards the topic is to leave no room for error. When it comes to grammar and spelling, make sure to type your messages in a text editing program and correct any errors. Also, read the work out loud before submitting it. It is surprising how reading out loud uncovers errors missed by spell check and reading silently. It is tempting to find errors in the know-nothings work, but refrain from making statements about it. Attack the issues and let others take notice of your opposition’s lack of ability. This saves you from seeming petty by attacking them for their poor grammatical skills.

If their writing is so poor that an accurate meaning cannot be determined (this really does happen) then ask them to elaborate on the issue or when responding to their comments preface your statement with what you understand the argument to be. For instance, “Your argument, as I understand it, is that hunting is justifiable because of its cultural significance and its deeply rooted traditions. Given this, the problem with attempting to legitimize hunting by virtue of these criteria becomes readily apparent when past institutions now long defunct are inputted into such a contention…etc.” I suggest the latter method over that of the former because it has been my experience that know-nothings will habitually fail to elaborate on any position they offer.

Why Debate With Know-Nothings at All

Because of the difficulties of trying to logically debate with irrational individuals the question must soon come to bear, “Why debate with them at all?” I believe the answer is threefold. First, if an activist is calm and logical in approach then it is the know-nothing who comes off as being irrational. This irrationality severely undermines their position. Second, any opportunity to debate strengthens the skills requisite of such a task. It also serves to clarify issues in the mind of the activist. I have found that in the midst of an argument I often hit upon new examples and theories on which to employ during the existing and future discussions. Third, you never know who may overhear or read the discussion. Someone’s consciousness may begin to shift towards the animal rights position because of the things an activist says.

On the obverse, there are always those individuals who claim to have been fence sitters but are now violently opposed to animal rights because of an activist’s comments. In short, ignore them; this is another attempt to discourage activists from continuing their activities.

Stay Strong

The animal rights activist is a peculiar person, one who stands in the gap of “what is” and “what should be.” We openly accept the position that society currently relegates us to, because it is necessary to uphold the rights of those beings who suffer alongside humanity. “Very simply, we have an unwavering knowledge of who we are and what we stand for, such attacks should be expected and leave us undaunted as we carry out our duties.” It seems to me that being human(e) is about showing compassion and unrelenting kindness, not just to those entities which yield enough power to demand it, but also to those entities which by virtue of being utterly powerless beg to be blessed by such goodwill and fortune. To quote from the vegan band Earth Crisis “Now this war has two sides.”

Animal Liberation Now!

| | |
| | | |

Posted/Updated: 1/30/07