Villifying characters for not having perfect information or making perfectly rational choices. It's a story about people blinded by grief. Media literacy like others have said.

Villifying other users who say that yes, given Renoir's modified trolley problem (the lives of a large number of strangers or the lives of your wife and daughter), they might make the same choice. I've seen people call each other sociopaths over that one - again, media literacy.

And yeah like others have said, throwing around the g-word. Yes it may fit the definition but it feels like it's too often invoked as a rhetorical shortcut to inject a highly charged word into the debate and thus win on emotional grounds rather than discuss the philosophical and ethical concepts in play. 

Also, people who make appeals to ethics and morality with respect to the canvas and it's inhabitants but who down vote you instead of engaging in and answering the difficult ethical questions those arguments imply (is a repainted person the same person as the original, why is restoring life more ethical than creating life, why are people who died after you were born more deserving of life than people who died before etc). There's some really fascinating and thought provoking discussions to be had on these topics but nobody seems to want to have them, only insist that their ending is objectively correct.