my behavior is always negotiable, but when you open a negotiation by moralizing about it, you've already told me that you expect to get whatever you want for free, so there's very little reason to *not* treat you like a loudmouth asshole
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @chaosprime @lunavis
If someone takes "you're doing thing X, it hurts people in this way, can you maybe consider not doing that" as an attack in every case (as in, without specific evidence of disingenuity or flaws in the statement's logic) then I feel safe assuming they're trash.
2 replies 0 retweets 11 likes -
It's hard not to see such people as caring more about scoring points in their interactions than not harming people, and I don't really want to spend too much time interacting with people who are constantly imposing an adversarial frame.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
I'm hopefully being precise enough here to allow for the possibility that you are not such a person, and that this is not what you meant.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @hikikomorphism @lunavis
it is not, illustrating consequences isn't at all what i mean by moralizing (possibly invalidly), what annoys me is more leaning on social convention and its implied threats without any acknowledgement that somebody may be using different values, not doing your values poorly
2 replies 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @chaosprime @hikikomorphism
this is a really good point: there's an undertone of "you should adopt my values" in cases i see and to that i just say fuck that
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @lunavis @chaosprime
My problem is that I've definitely seen people react exactly this way to requests not to misgender people or to stop using racial slurs, including using exactly this argument to defend it.
3 replies 0 retweets 8 likes -
-
Some moral conventions are more correct than others.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
in my case, what i'm mad about is that a conversation like "what you're doing is costing me X, while giving it up would cost you Y, how can we find a good equilibrium" couldn't happen because it started with "what i want has the word 'fair' on it so you have to do what i want"
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes
if one were to generalize anything from that to the misgendering and slur examples, i guess the question for those people would be "what is the benefit that you are getting from doing these things that makes it worth the costs you're imposing on others, to you"
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.