If you disagree but can’t succinctly explain, I would suggest doing one of these things:
Write a long comment explaining your disagreement
Write a short comment stating your specific points of disagreement, with a disclaimer that you don’t have time to fully justify your beliefs
Your comment is being downvoted (I suspect) because it does neither of these, instead it indirectly insults the author without providing any information as to why you disagree. IMO this sort of comment doesn’t really contribute anything—all I know is that you disagree, I have no idea what’s going on inside your head, so I’m not learning anything from it.
I should have done the second; I was mistaken that clicking “Read More” in the commenting guidelines would not reward me with sufficient clarity about Duncan’s elaborate standards; I apologize for my rude behavior.
Explain, please? I affirm the importance of charitability and I am interested in greater specificity about what you have identified as ‘aggressiveness’. I see aggressiveness as sometimes justified.
Note to other readers: LVSN will not be able to reply further. On top of the already extant sarcasm in this thread, their response to my private message began “Sabien. You messaged me directly. It’s a miracle.”
(Oh, I had neither upvoted nor downvoted because I hadn’t caught the sarcasm, because it hadn’t explicitly occurred to me that someone would be that much of a dick. Going back to add my own downvotes now. Not deleting because there’s now useful content underneath.)
IMO this sort of comment doesn’t really contribute anything—all I know is that you disagree, I have no idea what’s going on inside your head, so I’m not learning anything from it.
Just pointing out that this also applies to upvotes and downvotes. That’s the mechanism for expressing disagreement or agreement when you really don’t feel like stating your reasons explicitly.
Why the downvotes? “Lizardman” is a great status-reducing thing to call a person just for being too weird and disagreeable! :)
This was the original reasoning behind judges-elected-for-life—that society needed principled men and women of discernment who did not need to placate or cater to lizardman.
After all, no one of discernmentwould ever heed a true lizardman. They know the difference between someone who seems like a lizardman and someone who is a lizardman.
You could have said “I find this post offensive, since it appears to insist on status-reducing people who are only being too weird and-or disagreeable.” I believe this still would have been downvoted, but maybe less so. Nonetheless, I think this is a quite arguable point.
(I would have upvoted “I find this post offensive, since it appears to insist on status-reducing people who are only being too weird and-or disagreeable.” It seems entirely productive, written that way.)
The original draft of this contained a digression into how “lizardman” is an unfortunate pejorative, and how I feel like I can use it non-dangerously because of things like split-and-commit and staying mostly on the level of observation/keeping psychologizing rare and careful.
Perhaps I should’ve left that part in, but it was like 60% overlapping and redundant with the FB quote and made it feel like I was meandering too much.
I agree “lizardman” is, basically, a weapon, but I also separately think it’s describing a real phenomenon, and that it’s possible to use it non-violently.
I insist that you either always use it non-violently or always explain why it does not just mean ‘being weird and disagreeable’, and also why it doesn’t mean anything else that is entirely morally irrelevant either, because you should never be cruel over anything that is morally irrelevant.
No standing with whom? I am requesting that you not be cruel over shallow and irrelevant matters; that is exactly what I should be doing here no matter the density and inconsiderateness of you or anyone else.
My standing with Omniscient beings is the standing that should primarily matter to allegedly rational people.
No sane person can disagree with any of this succinctly on the level of truth nor of misleadingness; excellently written.
If you disagree but can’t succinctly explain, I would suggest doing one of these things:
Write a long comment explaining your disagreement
Write a short comment stating your specific points of disagreement, with a disclaimer that you don’t have time to fully justify your beliefs
Your comment is being downvoted (I suspect) because it does neither of these, instead it indirectly insults the author without providing any information as to why you disagree. IMO this sort of comment doesn’t really contribute anything—all I know is that you disagree, I have no idea what’s going on inside your head, so I’m not learning anything from it.
I should have done the second; I was mistaken that clicking “Read More” in the commenting guidelines would not reward me with sufficient clarity about Duncan’s elaborate standards; I apologize for my rude behavior.
I do not believe this apology is genuine, since LVSN has continued to be actively aggressive and uncharitable subsequent to it.
Explain, please? I affirm the importance of charitability and I am interested in greater specificity about what you have identified as ‘aggressiveness’. I see aggressiveness as sometimes justified.
Note to other readers: LVSN will not be able to reply further. On top of the already extant sarcasm in this thread, their response to my private message began “Sabien. You messaged me directly. It’s a miracle.”
(Oh, I had neither upvoted nor downvoted because I hadn’t caught the sarcasm, because it hadn’t explicitly occurred to me that someone would be that much of a dick. Going back to add my own downvotes now. Not deleting because there’s now useful content underneath.)
Just pointing out that this also applies to upvotes and downvotes. That’s the mechanism for expressing disagreement or agreement when you really don’t feel like stating your reasons explicitly.
Why the downvotes? “Lizardman” is a great status-reducing thing to call a person just for being too weird and disagreeable! :)
After all, no one of discernment would ever heed a true lizardman. They know the difference between someone who seems like a lizardman and someone who is a lizardman.
You could have said “I find this post offensive, since it appears to insist on status-reducing people who are only being too weird and-or disagreeable.” I believe this still would have been downvoted, but maybe less so. Nonetheless, I think this is a quite arguable point.
(I would have upvoted “I find this post offensive, since it appears to insist on status-reducing people who are only being too weird and-or disagreeable.” It seems entirely productive, written that way.)
The original draft of this contained a digression into how “lizardman” is an unfortunate pejorative, and how I feel like I can use it non-dangerously because of things like split-and-commit and staying mostly on the level of observation/keeping psychologizing rare and careful.
Perhaps I should’ve left that part in, but it was like 60% overlapping and redundant with the FB quote and made it feel like I was meandering too much.
I agree “lizardman” is, basically, a weapon, but I also separately think it’s describing a real phenomenon, and that it’s possible to use it non-violently.
I insist that you either always use it non-violently or always explain why it does not just mean ‘being weird and disagreeable’, and also why it doesn’t mean anything else that is entirely morally irrelevant either, because you should never be cruel over anything that is morally irrelevant.
Strong downvote and strong disagree because you have no standing to insist anything at me.
No standing with whom? I am requesting that you not be cruel over shallow and irrelevant matters; that is exactly what I should be doing here no matter the density and inconsiderateness of you or anyone else.
My standing with Omniscient beings is the standing that should primarily matter to allegedly rational people.
You did not request. You insisted, and it is disingenuous of you to equivocate between the two.