If that were what I said, you might have a point.
You can explain what you meant, if you like.
It's not even down to shades of meaning, it's straight-up misrepresentation on your part. I said people primarily know the word as a label on a playback device, so it's primarily a choice-thing in people's minds, and therefore the rarer no-choice meaning should be the one to differentiate itself, if such a thing should even be done in the first place
. Then you pretended I said my remote has a mute button, therefore there can be no other meaning
. All the while yourself insisting that there can be no other meaning than the no-choice meaning.
You did. However, you seem to be firmly in the "don't" camp.
In this case, the word has not been reclaimed.
Your efforts seem aimed not only at sabotaging any such reclamation, but at furthering perceptions of offense. It's very unclear what improvement you hope to be made to the lexicon by doing this.
It goes both way. You're not accepting the point of view that it's offensive at all. There's got to be some give and take here, and you are continuing to argue against this despite being repeatedly told of the negative associations for a lot of people.
I'm wrong and have to shut up and submit to the New Received Meaning, end of story? How is that give and take?
Are there people out there who will be offended? Sure, I bet there are, somewhere. I have yet to meet any, but if I ever do find any, I'll let them tell me directly if they themselves are personally offended. I won't like being told how I can and can't talk, but I'll probably go along with it, at least when they're around. Of course, this feeling of walking on eggshells could very well cause me to minimize my contact with them.
I have a feeling it will go like that with most people, including everyone in this thread, even the lurkers. So the upshot of this insistence on a slur meaning will mainly be (1) driving people away from themselves and (2) cementing the slur meaning in place and empowering it as one.
Being a petulant child is not the issue. The issue is attempting to police other people based on one's own unwitting enshrinement of slurs.
Should I just let you persist in your ignorance next time?
If by "ignorance", you mean "unfamiliarity with this supposed verboten
status", that's one thing. But I have a distinct feeling you actually mean "obvious caveman-like inferiority to enlightened people like myself".
So when he advocates for his viewpoint, it's just to cause trouble, but when you do, it's not?
That's not the context of these comments. I was saying that if you said something offensive, you'd be told and why. That is where the 'persisting in using it afterwards just to cause trouble' thing comes from.
But that's exactly what's happened here. You told him it's offensive; he questioned it; and then you berated him for arguing back at you.
Is being deliberately offensive when you know better a 'viewpoint'?
Is automatically acceding to every demand a viewpoint?
If you're asked to stop doing something and you keep doing it anyway, what other intention could you have?
I'm going to have to ask you to stop using the word "intention". If you persist, you're only trying to cause trouble.
brythain wrote:The NAD says that 'Deaf' refers only to people who share ASL as a common language.
Really? That seems awfully exclusionary. They're saying JSL or BSL communities are therefore not Deaf?
It is not more sensitive to refer to individuals who are physically within normal limits as temporarily ablebodied (TABs) or momentarily ablebodied (MABs).
That sounds like a threat!