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.
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.