I agree. It&#x27;s an aggressive gambit. Fix this or you&#x27;re X (bad thing) and people will hate you. That being said, people have a tendency to lean on the crutch of intentions. Which is itself just a more subtle gambit. It&#x27;s acceptance implies that anyone can do anything for which a positive intention is conceivable. In this instance, the result <i>is</i> a blatant signaling game that the middle class necessarily appreciates the consequences of. They jockey for status using the commoditized correlates of <i>worth</i>. They have alienated us each from ourselves. From our actual worth or ability to do anything. Of course they&#x27;re just trying to ensure what&#x27;s best for themselves. But they increasingly do so with a grotesque and ruthless ignorance of how it impacts the people around them. Something has to mediate this. Otherwise the incentive is ultimately for everyone to <i>abandon</i> empathy.<p>EDIT: Hmm. I seem to be shadow-banned. I&#x27;ll reply here:<p>I didn&#x27;t do that. I did try to identify those things they were doing (intentionally or not) that were damaging and <i>why they were doing them</i>. I did this while acknowledging the nature of the labeling that was taking place. I tried to instill bilateral empathy instead of merely throwing my hands up and <i>calling</i> them name-callers. We can also have empathy for such people. They&#x27;re not that out of line. The competitive behavior of the middle class is seemingly demonic. Especially from certain perspectives.<p>I don&#x27;t know where you&#x27;re getting this demagogue stuff or the bit about the blind application of labels. We&#x27;re all humans and we&#x27;re all making observations of our local reality. In this tangent you seem to be perpetrating the no-name-calling philosophy you claim to oppose.<p>EDIT EDIT: Ah. My mistake.