Explain your objection. It’s a parenting problem, not everyone else’s.

The people.

Words can get someone involuntarily committed to a mental hospital. Words can be used to take away rights. Words can affect national policy. Words were what Adolf Hitler used to send people to the concentration camps, and they’re what Donald Trump is using to do the same thing today. Words are extraordinarily dangerous.

Nah, none of those. All instances of harm require unnecessary action taken by choice. Words can be disregarded. Acting on words is the actor’s choice.

When we legitimise words that dehumanise the mentally ill

They’re not doing that. Moreover, using such words alone doesn’t do what you claim. There are a number of steps between a word you find offensive & adverse action: that argument is a slippery slope. Unless the words incite imminent action, people have an unbounded amount of time to think & arrive to a decision before taking action. Any amount of discussion can occur during that time to influence & inform decisions. Rather than an overgeneralized attack on using a word, a more focused & coherent argument to support human rights could be raised.

Over relying on offense & emotion to steer their judgement discounts people’s capacity to reason & infantilizes them, which is condescending. Offense & emotion are not reliable guides of judgement. Speculation that it would promote better outcomes is not a valid argument. That such an approach would work better than reason is poorly supported. We could at least as plausibly appeal to reason rather than to offended emotion with the bonus of not irrationally overgeneralizing.

People can interpret context to draw distinctions & you’re overgeneralizing. The overgeneralization underpinning your offended opinion isn’t a valid argument. Neither is the speculation offered to support it. Telling people their words mean something they do not, disrespecting their moral agency & ability think, & insulting their intelligence to discern meaning is unpersuasive. Promoting a rational argument more specifically supporting the outcomes you favor would be more persuasive.

Follow your own link: it’s back (in archive mode).

Because you can’t: worthless opinion discarded.

Are you making something not about yourself about yourself? That…checks out.

Ironically, it might support the author’s point. Now I’ve got to reexamine how much this explains other social media interactions.

That’s going to get someone hurt. These words have just as much destructive potential, so we need to treat them the same way.

Offense isn’t harm: no one is getting hurt. You’re overstating the harm of expression by appealing to clinical language & understating the need for resilience & enough judgement to discern that in context, the word has a looser meaning. It’s a bit overdramatic.

Moreover, conventional language doesn’t operate the way you suggest: there’s no such rule about psychiatrists & “off limits”. No one is obligated to share your opinion on this: it’s not fact.

Think you’re outing yourself as unable to grasp a sarcastic answer to a dumb question in the human case. And look at all those upvotes! Lemmy keeps disappointing.

Explain how the post is right wing.

Trolling seems like a catch all for unpopular ideas/“things I don’t like”. How is unpopular expression & expression in general not the whole point of social media?

I’m accused of being AI on other sites

Other sites? Happens here, too. The best answer is troll them by imitating AI.

it’s mostly bullies and wannabe bullies. And that most people who claim they are for social justice, aren’t. They are just for screaming and belittling other people who are different than them.’

the people doing the saying are very rarely doing anything to help the people they ‘advocate’ for so much as they are using them as a soapbox to grandstand about how they are ‘good’ and anyone who isn’t as ‘concerned’ as they are is ‘bad’.

that’s lemmy in a nutshell

even when they can do something purely through online expression like fix an inaccessible post, they’ll often still not do it: they’ll argue over it, offer nonexcuses (eg, their shitty lemmy app lacks basic features available from the website to edit posts & provide text alternatives), not fix their post, keep posting inaccessible content. these are the same people blasting each other about leftist causes, which sometimes ironically include accessibility.

they’re social justice imposters

Yeah, inceldom has coopted the word

Only if we let them, and anyone who does is an incompetent advocate choosing to let sexists decide the meaning of words for everyone else when everyone else has at least as much power to do otherwise. It’s complacent cooperation with the enemy that purports ethical superiority while being the opposite.

Older activists who understood the pitfalls of establishing their own stigmatization in the language at least had the sense not to cooperate with their enemies. They’d more creatively reappropriate or reclaim words or embrace them as terms of pride. That lesson seems lost here.

Someone who subscribes to the pretentious “punch down” concept & seems so full of themselves they toss around assumptions of “bigotry”, “racism”, “sexism”, “anti-lgbtq+phobia” on the thinnest of evidence perhaps out of insecurity. Basically, anyone who says things that are a bit sanctimonious & haughty rather than cool & thoughtful possibly because they didn’t get enough hugs growing up or maybe too many.

Anyone who fails to get references & leaps to hasty judgements. Same reason as above.

Anyone who calls their irrationality challenged “engagementbait” or “ragebait” when they can’t refute it because the challenge is absolutely correct.

Anyone who says

For me it’s saying, “we can’t joke about anything anymore”.

Sirens go off immediately 🚨

So the authors of these books?

• The female
• Females
• Single Black female
• Females and Harry Potter
• Fierce females on television: a cultural history
• Warriors, witches, women: mythology’s fiercest females
• How Can They Tell If I Am Male Or Female? Gender Stereotypes in Disney Movies
• Mistress, mother, muse: an exploration of the female in modern and contemporary Mediterranean literature
• Gender and identity in Franz Grillparzer’s classical dramas: figuring the female
• Livy’s women: crisis, resolution, and the female in Rome’s foundation history
• A heritage of her own?: Allusion and tradition in female-authored poetry of the Hellenistic age
• African American females: addressing challenges and nurturing the future
• Gender, supernatural beings, and the liminality of death: monstrous males/fatal females
• Women who fly: goddesses, witches, mystics, and other airborne females
• A house full of females: plural marriage and women’s rights in early Mormonism, 1835-1870

Or of various feminist book titles featuring the noun?

Or the vast amount of people who use the noun self-referentially in dating communities (eg, “F4F/M”), classifieds (eg, “need a roommate […] females only”), or natural communication? In conventional language, it’s an acceptable word.

Maybe you have this wrong, and instead it’s those who in effect (which may defy intent) stigmatize an entire gender by claiming their noun is wrong instead of embracing it as a word of pride.