This message was self-deleted by its author

[rrneck]

169. Actually, for some reason I thought Little Star

was talking about different words there. I wasn't paying enough attention. I posted a bit longer reply at #158 that might make more sense.

If we use certain terms like the ones you suggested, the common understanding of them leaves little doubt (but still some) about how we feel about the person at whom they are directed. Some words are more culturally powerful than others, and their power is open to interpretation dependeng on how they are used, who is using them, and why. While you kindly added stars to your examples, I know what words you are talking about. They are in my head, but I'm not offended.

Misogyny is hate for women. So the addition of the term misogyny is an effort to control feelings through the use of language. Do you really think that's possible? Do you think it's possible to judge someone's feelings toward an entire gender and effectively change those feelings by forcing people to use different words? Hate speech and hate crimes are notoriously difficult to prosecute in real life. It won't be any easier here. You just can't tell people how they feel.

Should we have to listen to expressions of ill will toward us? Of course not. But again, are those expressions directed at us (or another) specifically or because of our gender? It's not always easy to tell. And if directed at another, can we legitamely claim injury? Hence the never ending controversy.

And that's just the feelings of the speaker. The feelings of the listener also come into play. There is no objective standard for umbrage. Just because someone says they're offended doesn't mean they have a right to be so. But it's a fine way to manipulate others either by keeping them constantly on the defensive, or by leveraging the feelings of groups of people to dominate discourse. Social dominators come in all political colors, shapes and sizes.