[voidUpdate]

I mean when people are ignoring facts, to the point that its probably going to hurt people, I feel like I'm justified in trying to know who they are, like "transphobe", "racist", "ableist", "climate change denier". I'm aware that JK Rowling and Graham Linehan probably have various views, opinions and concerns, but neither of them want me and my friends to exist

[cwillu]

See how convenient that was!

[voidUpdate]

...I'm not sure if you're trying to deny that those two people are transphobic?

[cwillu]

I'm trying to point out that you've entire dismissed the (incorrect!) views on climate change of many people because two other people are transphobic.

[voidUpdate]

I'm not dismissing the views of people who don't agree with climate change because two people are transphobic. I'm dismissing their views on climate change because of the wealth of scientific evidence we have that climate change is a thing that humans have caused

[ifyoubuildit]

The problem is "people who disagree with climate change" is too poorly defined to be useful.

This is the pattern: group A comes up with a label for their enemy. They make some progress on getting everyone else to hate that group. Then group B comes along and decides to piggyback on that label for their own slightly different enemy. Rinse and repeat until you get this frankenbullshit:

> The report defined climate deniers as those who say that the climate crisis is not real or not primarily caused by humans, or claim that climate science is not settled, that extreme weather is not caused by global warming or that planet-warming pollution is beneficial.

Eventually, the label becomes useless for actually understanding what a person thinks because there are so many OR clauses in it. Despite this, people still use it for making actual judgements. The net result is the social climate today, where everyone righteously hates everyone.