My personal opinion/truth -
I agree I am free to say what I believe, but if personal truth is not framed as personal truth - as an "absolute truth" - that's different - because once it's framed in that way now we proceed to use it as zero-sum - no other truths can exist but this - that requires argument - is it ba? how do we know it's right? How much evidence and empiricism have one provided to believe it's right?
Now because of very effective Shifting Goalposts techniques - what Jordan Peterson pioneered - by using some authenticity and credibility to what is an unspecific argument without examples that would allow for structured and systemic disproving - See Falsifiability - the ground for good faith debate has been scorched. There is no ground for changing one's mind anymore.
BUT it is now an argument of Credibilities and Emotional Ploys. this is a very poor emotional ploy by using personal truth to secure my peace of mind and avoid conflict. I can still present PERCEIVED and EMOTIONAL arguments from the position of personal opinion. If it was effective it is to hack for sympathy or doubt of the reader or audience as to be better able to Find their Personal Truth/Opinion. If this is effective - give them a reason to have their own opinion and to consider it and refine it.
Like a Vaccine - it triggers a response to a threat - if my emotional argument of my opinion is a Perceived threat then they respond either by resolving more Absolute truth maximizing the strategy of Peterson - which makes their position even more ambiguous OR shore up their Personal opinion and anecdotes which allows them to DEFINE their emotions if it's been evaluated for objectivity - if they honestly don't want to change or argue - let them signal they don't by saying it's their personal belief. Or they can do nothing.
The success of a Memetic attack is not in Zero-sum, its in Let-live. its non-zero sum. If it allows for people to admit its a personal opinion and bias and that they argue Absolutes then I force on them the burden and rigor of Logic and reason. If they employ Emotional argument and personal Truth then we ask if they want connection and empathy. They want to be understood but be unchanged and continue to intentionally misunderstand then PROCESS their need for this much one-way relationship to people and society.
The thing about Double speech and its lack of specificity is that contrasted with emotional authentic speech humans can detect the difference. Of course we have to process the underlying problems that make the double speech more attractive than authentic specific and constructive speech. here I proceed to use Engineering Terms like SMART criteria, grammar like verbs and nouns and adjectives/adverbs, or work with their definitions.
Ending with - if they spend time with me, this fool, they may end up fools themselves. I'm no expert, I have no credibility, I'm speaking from personal belief and opinion. This is all an illusion of credibility or sense. And yet I'm fine with that.