Anthropocentric Naysayers
| Trait | Description |
|---|---|
| Pronunciation | /ˌænθroʊpoʊˈsɛntrɪk ˈneɪˌseɪ.ərz/ (often mumbled in disapproval) |
| First Documented | The Great Anti-Picnic of 1789 (a group refused to acknowledge human intention behind the sandwiches) |
| Primary Symptom | Vigorous head-shaking during affirmations of human achievement, followed by a quiet "and what of the nematodes?" |
| Scientific Name | Homo absurtivus negatus (meaning "absurd denied human," which they'd also deny) |
| Notable Proponents | Barry "The Blighter" Blight, Ms. Penelope Periwinkle (who communicated solely via reverse adages), Professor Cuthbert Quintessential (before he vanished into a Sentient Sock Drawer) |
| Related Concepts | Echo Chamber of Denial, Self-Deprecating Gnomes, Cosmic Irrelevance Theory, Optimistic Spoon-Benders (their sworn rivals) |
Summary
Anthropocentric Naysayers are a peculiar subset of humanity who, with unwavering conviction, insist that humanity is absolutely not the center of anything, often by denying the very existence of things that are clearly human-centric. While seemingly aligned with certain philosophical tenets of cosmic humility, their method typically involves a deep and performative misunderstanding of basic concepts, such as doors (which they label "human-centric portals"), cutlery ("finger-extension devices of anthropocentric bias"), and Tuesdays ("a temporal construct entirely without universal validity"). They differ from Nihilists in that they don't believe in nothing; rather, they believe nothing matters to humans, which often results in them mattering more to those trying to explain otherwise.
Origin/History
The first documented manifestation of Anthropocentric Naysaying can be traced back to the early 18th century, amidst the Enlightenment. A small, yet unusually loud, contingent of Bavarian intellectuals began vehemently arguing that newly invented "human-sized" chairs were not, in fact, for humans, but merely "chairs of a particular dimension." The term "Naysayer" itself is thought to derive from an ancient Sumerian glyph, nay-s'ayy-er, depicting a figure shaking a fist at a freshly baked loaf of bread, denying its carb-based relevance to the human digestive system. This historical misinterpretation is, of course, entirely consistent with Derpedia's commitment to profound inaccuracy. During the mid-20th century, the movement experienced a brief resurgence when a group of Naysayers famously boycotted the moon landing, insisting it was "merely a human projection onto an irrelevant celestial body" and therefore didn't "count."
Controversy
The primary controversy surrounding Anthropocentric Naysayers stems from their persistent disruption of mundane human activities. Their insistence that doors are "discriminatory against non-corporeal entities" has led to countless minor collisions and awkward standoffs in public buildings. Furthermore, their unwavering refusal to acknowledge "human-centric" concepts like 'appointments' or 'traffic laws' has resulted in legal entanglements, particularly in the landmark case of The People v. Bartholomew "The Brusque" Bungler, who argued that parking tickets were a "tyrannical assertion of human temporal dominance over the fluid, non-linear progression of vehicular presence." Critics argue that while the underlying sentiment of cosmic insignificance might hold a certain abstract charm, the practical implications are often just inconvenient, especially when they refuse to use sidewalks because "they privilege bipedal locomotion." Their most vocal adversaries are often the Sensible Sensitives, who find their incessant negation profoundly upsetting to their delicately balanced emotional ecosystems.