> ... yes? Of course I look at the subset of people who are today counted as weirdos. How else would one evaluate the social treatment of weirdos? Using the sa

> ... yes? Of course I look at the subset of people who are today counted as weirdos. How else would one evaluate the social treatment of weirdos? Using the same reasoning, one could say, "treatment of X group of weirdos hasn't gotten any better because society treats weirdos better; it's just that X has become somewhat more socially acceptable". For example, you could apply this reasoning to, say, furries. Probably more accepted now than 20 or 30 years ago, but still considered weird. If that's the model, then it's impossible for society to become more accepting of weirdos in general, because each time they become more accepting of some particular group, you just attribute the change to "social acceptability" of that group, rather than niceness to weirdos more generally. With the end game being, "sure, everyone is nice to everyone now, but it's not because we became nicer to weirdos, but because now everything is socially acceptable and nothing is considered weird." It's a useless way of measuring things because it makes progress literally impossible by definition.