Wtf, this is the same woman that shot her dog for being “untrainable” and “less than useless” before shooting their goat for being “disgusting, musky, rancid”, “nasty and mean”, and that “loved to chase” her children.

Calling it simplified does a disservice of the real world impacts of the “trolley” - especially since unlike a thought experiment - this trolley problem is physically constructed by people to achieve imperialistic goals - so expending energy blaming random lemmings for this - instead of figuring out who built, maintains and presents the trolley as the only option and how to dismantle it seems useless.

I believe we should avoid infighting and actually organize to do something so we don’t have to choose if we pull the lever or not every 4 years (if there even is another election…)

Cool, we remember - now what? What do we materially do now to resist that isn’t just blaming non-voters online?

But you see one of them is about erasing ingenious peoples history (the Mexica/Aztec) - where the other is about forcing PoC to look at racial stereotypes - so one is cool and fun and the other is woke and bad 😤

So your argument is “people will break the rules so we shouldn’t have any rules because it doesn’t matter”?

This is the classic nazi bar argument - which has been proven time and time again that “free speech absolutism” consistently leads to spaces becoming hostile to marginalized groups

I see you have your heart in the right place but by insisting on everyone having equal rights to say anything - you are inherently favoring the oppressor over the oppressed.

I don’t think we’ll come to an agreement so I’ll stop replying as this feels futile to argue over.

EDIT: Just FYI this is what you’re defending in this instance

So why leave this comment? You yourself identify the social impact of “assigning a label (i.e. how others react to it)” - so for what purpose are you arguing for what labels are to be assigned?

Can you not just accept that the people impacted by this label (and the scientific community) have recognized that this label is harmful to individuals and not feel the need to chime in?

Or do you feel your desire for pedantry is more important than the negative impact such a label can have on marginalized groups?

What’s gained by insisting on potentially harmful labels?

Even by your own admission, labels have social impact. So why are you choosing to argue for harmful ones?

EDIT: If you’re actually arguing for better acceptance of people with mental disorders - I would recommend volunteering at a mental health institution or defending people’s right to self-determination.

This is demonstrably false.

Actually that’s a common misconception - while gender dysphoria is listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) - it’s not actually a mental disorder (similar to how the DSM includes physiological and environmental issues like Insomnia or Social Exclusion) - main reason it’s there is for admin purposes and to facilitate treatment access.

However, a condition like body dysmorphia (think Anorexia Nervosa) is considered a mental disorder because the issue is the mind incorrectly perceiving the body - therefore it can be treated using psychotherapy which enables the mind to correctly perceive the body and prevent harm.

People who experience gender dysphoria on the other hand - actually correctly perceive their body (that’s where the distress comes from) so psychotherapy doesn’t work to alleviate this - as you can’t therapy away an accurate perception (think gay conversion therapy)

Which is why after many decades of research the only treatment that’s been found to work is aligning the body with the mind - as at that point the mind continues perceiving the body correctly but this time it’s congruent with it’s mental model which alleviates the distress.

Hope this helps :)