On those topics you should assume that everyone
- has skin in that game
- has thin skin
I’d disagree. When you refer to pets as slaves you’re using definitions on your terms rather than the terms of the people you’re talking to (which you tend to do in political arenas). That’s a terrible approach. Language should be defined by use, and you should be trying to frame your ideas in mutually intelligible terms rather than using terms in a way that isn’t interpersonal.
Yeah, but they’re telling you to justify yourself because you’re saying really confusing things since you’re not trying to bridge the gap with your communication style.
If I see a 1000 word ramble saying weird things, I’m lazy so I’ll skim for the most objectionable bit and then nail that part to the wall. By saying things like “pets are slaves” you’re inviting that. If you were to say something more like, “animals are conscious and feeling beings and should be treated respectfully rather than treated like a curated possession” (or whatever it is you mean) where everyone’s going to understand what you’re trying to say then you’d be able to open up a more interesting discussion about animal rights and related things that promoted some mutual understanding, even if not all agree in the end whether animals are conscious/feeling/deserving respectful treatment. But you have to use language that suit your audience (which will vary depending on who you’re talking to).
If someone says “justify yourself!” you should try to understand where they’re coming from that they responded that way and adjust your communication style to try understand their point of view even if you don’t agree.
