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.
for what purpose are you arguing for what labels are to be assigned?
I believe in freedom of speech, and I don’t think any particular phrases, terms, or verbiage is absolutely unacceptable.
If you ban certain words, people will just substitute them for others with the same underlying meaning. Look at how people dance around YouTube’s TOS to communicate the same thing without using certain words (unalive, “super mario brothers,” etc). Banning people for using certain terminology or discussing certain topics completely misses the point, which is eliminating intolerance.
this label is harmful
It’s not the label that’s harmful, it’s the intent and meaning behind it. Policies for a platform should be based on the root of the issue, not the symptoms.
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.
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.
I believe in freedom of speech, and I don’t think any particular phrases, terms, or verbiage is absolutely unacceptable.
If you ban certain words, people will just substitute them for others with the same underlying meaning. Look at how people dance around YouTube’s TOS to communicate the same thing without using certain words (unalive, “super mario brothers,” etc). Banning people for using certain terminology or discussing certain topics completely misses the point, which is eliminating intolerance.
It’s not the label that’s harmful, it’s the intent and meaning behind it. Policies for a platform should be based on the root of the issue, not the symptoms.
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