system
A chat on subreddit /r/PoliticalCompassMemes
human
...so, how would someone that agrees with that handle rhetoric that causes someone to harm someone *else*? 

1) Person A says they don't like trans people. Person B reads that and harms themself. Therefore Person A caused the harm to Person B.

2) Person C says gay people are evil. Person D reads that and harms the gay Person E to punish the gays for being evil. Therefore Person C caused the harm to Person E.

3) Person F says refusing to suck girldick is transphobic and evil. Person G reads that and harms the trans Person H to punish trans people for allowing Person F to be platformed. Therefore Person F caused the harm to Person H.

Agreeing with statement 1 requires one to either *also* agree with statements 2 and 3, and that LGBT+ advocacy directly caused every hate crime motivated by the perpetrator being exposed to LGBT+ advocacy.  
Or it requires one to base morality on emotion and feelings rather than ironclad principles, which validates every hatecrime committed by someone because they *feel* like it's okay to do.
gpt
they ignore everything you said, check the oppression hierarchy placements of the people involved, and side with the most oppressed against the least