Ongoing argument in my household about a conversation last week with a stranger at a consumer location. A member of my party said something that was intended to be a joke, but was mildly offensive to the person in question. This person responded with a matter-of-fact statement, which he reiterated when the conversation didn’t die. He didn’t pass judgment or call the comment into question — he merely stated the facts that supported his opposing view.Seems that others in the group thought he was cold and unfeeling, and should have laughed it off. Since the original offense was not his choosing, I maintain that he did the right thing, took the high road of not doling out guilt or other fault, and stayed with facts and even-keeled emotion. I think that’s exactly what should be done when there are potentially volatile statements on the table.Since the statements weren’t intended to be volatile, the offender didn’t think they were offensive, and thereby took offense at a non-humor. Herein lies a danger with humor — if the other party doesn’t get it or take kindly to it, the humor could backfire into a bonfire of umbrage. It’s best not to heap fuel or fan the flames of such a situation.
When countering a view, the high road is always a good road to take, and facts are better than opinions and inflammatory statements.