Making other people explain things that they should not need to explain has undesirable connotations.

In what sense you shouldn't need to explain it? If you assume that I really do understand what you mean, but ask for other reasons, you are incorrect. That was not a rhetorical question. The only effect of not explaining in this case that I see is that I will remain ignorant of what you meant.

(In general, I noticed that I often can have trouble understanding things that people assume should be evident (I agree that they should be evident, in the hindsight), and I need explicit guidance to get what is meant. I can understand arbitrarily difficult things, but not always easily. My intuition can have trouble noticing the obvious.)

Downvoted for spending more words explaining your non-response than it would have taken to just give Nesov the benefit of the doubt and be explicit.

Everyone is capable of misunderstanding trivial things, so the notion "should not need to explain" looks suspicious to me (specifically, it looks like posturing rather than honest communication). Can you explain it, or does it self-apply?