Glass culture. That's what this is trying to amount to. One day, we'll just stop talking altogether because its offensive.
In their limited defense:
- They are technically correct about the words and phrases we use coloring our perception of the literal concepts those refer to, in addition to whatever the turn of phrase is actually referencing. In order for them to be meaningful, they have to have their own connotation to draw that connection. For example, the phrase killing two birds with one stone implies a positive, efficient use of resources to solve multiple problems at once, but the metaphor only works if we consider killing multiple birds better than one, or indeed killing birds good at all. Technically.
- I have no problem with the first, second, and fifth metaphors. They're honestly kind of clever twists. I could go into a handful of positive connotations from the top one, for example - the focus on providing resources for a solution rather than removing an obstacle seems to imply a more collaborative, generous way of solving problems than the original phrase's combative tone. If it weren't presented by and therefore associated with PETA, I might even have been inclined to add it to my lexicon. As it stands I'll have to come up with something else.
The most important counterpoint being that I find this more interesting as a mental exercise in language specifically than I do any kind of reason to give a damn about the animals it references, and I find the notion of the turns of phrase being otherwise "speciesist" to be at best laughable and at worst insane.
And I'm still bringing home the bacon, because **** you PETA bacon is
delicious.