> I won’t turn this into a political debate with my theories why, but nonetheless most of my circle of friends are animal lovers and I would have expected some

> I won’t turn this into a political debate with my theories why, but nonetheless most of my circle of friends are animal lovers and I would have expected some degree of empathy with my cause, but most of them acted like I was personally going to sneak into their house and steal all their meat from them. When I've witnessed these debates they're much like 2a. A vegetarian uses some moralizing and hyperbolic language to express how deeply they care about a cause and people either feel threatened or insulted by the language. To frame that even more concisely, it's like when pro-life people use moralizing and hyperbolic language about abortions in front of people that believe in them or have had one. My general takeaway from watching these issues is that moralizing, hyperbolic language or other subtle uses of shame, guilt, etc do not yield good results and often create backlash in response to the strength and travel that that kind of rhetoric has. Basically, we need to get better about how we talk about those issues if they're to be considered at all. Another common theme is usually one side in this debate has some camp within it's interest that is advocating for cancellation, and if you're not actively talking down cancellation both internally and externally to your interest group then you are perceived as showing by proxy approval via inaction.