How else would you describe them?

Maladaptive? Counterproductive?

How else would you describe them?

I wonder that, too. "Divorced from reality"?

Outlandish, bizarre, etc.

I say things are crazy or insane or nuts all the time.

This is also difficult with the whole 'reclaiming terms' trend. I say 'cripple' or 'crip' with my disabled friends. I wouldn't want someone calling me that as an insult, of course, but it's different with your mates who are also disabled. Not sure how that would work with 'crazy', given how widespread its use is.

In reality, I think 'crazy' is probably one of those that's very removed from its original meaning (though people will have different views on that). I mostly use it about the UK government's plans to reform the welfare system. ('Mad' is what I would probably say among people I was doing the term-reclaiming thing with. As in, the Mad Pride movement.)

How else would you describe them?

Paging erinacious!

I say 'cripple' or 'crip' with my disabled friends. I wouldn't want someone calling me that as an insult, of course, but it's different with your mates who are also disabled.

Yeah, I actually prefer the term "dyke" to "lesbian" (it's a phonetic thing) but used among friends.

Completely random retail interruption: Do you ever, ever wear dresses, Glam or Jess? Because Suela just linked in LJ to a great dressmaker who also makes genuinely gorgeous maternity dresses. With pockets, even.

You are now free to return to the conversation of actual substance and importance already in progress.

Those are adorable dresses! I'm not much of a dress wearer myself, and have been keeping my purchases pretty cheap for maternity wear as well, so probably not for me. Still - so cute!

Ugh, my long and extremely carefully worded post got eaten as I got timed out on a cafe link.

I'll try again. (composing first in gmail which has an autosave)

smonster, I'm not trying to be contentious and I don't know how to address my use of the word "gypped" without offending you (or possibly others). And since I don't want to offend anybody I'm not going to discuss that in particular.

However, I do want to discuss this:

The bottom line is that you put your freedom to use culturally offensive words over the feelings of those offended.

That's the bottom line for any writer. I may choose not to use certain words but I would retain that choice and not have it proscribed.

My feelings about "hurt feelings" are not unlike the upthread dismissal of "fair" and five year olds. It's a very broad and subjective filter to apply to language and I think there's a significant cost to discourse when we value the potential to offend that highly over linguistic freedom/flexibility.

People's feelings can be hurt by any number of reasonable or unreasonable things. It is - in my estimation - too broad a category to be used as an overriding principle. Which is not to say that I don't give it value or weigh it.

My not-radical stance is this: The potential to offend does not necessarily trump word choice.

Let me qualify that in two ways.

Sometimes it does trump word choice. In fact, in most instances I try to be conscious of all the implications of my word choice. If I'm not actively trying to offend somebody then it's poor communication to do so. The burden is not on the listener to be unoffended. I am responsible for my words and their effect.

I'm not asserting that freedom over all over considerations. Ignorance of context is not an excuse. You can't claim your innocence if you go see Mary J. Blige at the Apollo and scream loudly, "Only a 40 minute show! How niggardly! Wait? How can you take offense? Those words are completely unrelated!"

To continue my not-radical proposition, I weigh the value of linguistic freedom, nuance and vigor in balance to the potential to offend differently than you do. I do consider both elements.

Language doesn't get hurt feelings but it can be demeaned and watered down and made weak. Euphemizing is a really pernicious attack on meaning and discourse, widely used by politicians and managers. It can become a kind of bad faith, and creates distrust. Language needs defending. I do wish that people who were keen to cull offensive words weighed and acknowledged the cost to language more.

As I said before, taking offense is censorious. Which is not in itself wrong - to the contrary it's often the right and necessary social pressure. But it does incur a cost.

(I can speak more specifically on examples of what I consider using bad faith language, particularly the damage it's caused in left wing politics if you want.)

Finally, in reference to your oblique reference to "considering my privilege." I am conscious that the broadest categories that define me (white, male, het, cis, educated etc.) align me with the dominant culture. And that I do have the privilege of Not Having To Think About A Lot of Shitty Things Because They're Not Always In My Face. But I do think about them. It's not unconsidered.

I am not arguing that my freedom to use language happens in an imaginary vacuum (aka, privilege) that don't affect others.

I am arguing that I don't value hurt feelings and offense over language. That I do value them and consider them. But I weigh them differently against that freedom of language.

Effing five year old calling everything "gay".

This is kinda true for a lot of the elementary school boys Leif knows.

You are now free to return to the conversation of actual substance and importance already in progress.

Have I mentioned how much I love this place?

That is all.

Definitely time for more wine