"The basic point here seems correct, and obviously so. People take offense at things that lower their own or their ally's status."

That some people take some offense at some things that lower their status is trivial. (Introducing allies may be otiose, since the reduction affects the person allying.) Do all people take offense at all things and only those that lower their status? This is the claim, at least as first approximation. Certain commonly known experiments in cognition show that reasoners tend to ignore examining whether scenarios exist such that a status loss causes no offense or where offense occurs without the supposed precondition in status loss.

Here, in-depth discussion of counterexamples proposed by posters is avoided repeatedly. How is this different from a discussion occurring anywhere else? What does this state of affairs say about this community's approach to becoming more rational?