I suggest reading the whole site.

Ace of Sevens, that’s an extremely evil suggestion.

(Quick explanation: one can spend an inordinate amount of time browsing tvtropes, to the extent that there’s something of a meme: failing to warn people that a hyperlink might lead there is a heinous thing to do.)

The Nerd: I’m attempting to increase people’s ability to make a more informed choice. If writers are more aware of how certain words could impact various readers from various backgrounds, then they can make a better choice on whether those words could enhance or inhibit their goals as writers.

No problem there.

“constrain one’s liberty to choose their own words”
I’m attempting to increase people’s ability to make a more informed choice. If writers are more aware of how certain words could impact various readers from various backgrounds, then they can make a better choice on whether those words could enhance or inhibit their goals as writers.

Nerd: My only disagreement with your post is that the disabled don’t own the words, either. Language is public property, and the meaning of words is governed by context, not dictat. Understanding that is exactly what it means to understand a language. They have as much responsibility to respect context as we do. Merely taking offense is not a valid reason to constrain one’s liberty to choose their own words. But otherwise, I agree, we should not be thoughtless, and we should challenge what’s unfair.

My thoughts on the use of the word “insane” may be found here: http://harvardhumanist.org/2012/02/17/creating-a-more-inclusive-humanism-in-an-ableist-world/ (Rather than reproduce the entire thing in-line here.)

Ralph: The use of the word insane is surely a bit harsh. You used it on Hoffmann too, if I remember.

Indeed, and in that case the evidence was overwhelming to me. I found his delusional and paranoiac behavior disturbing (well beyond just ordinary sane behavior), and I will never work with him again, and I recommend no one else do either. My description thus accurately communicates my personal conclusion in the matter.

Whereas I only said Loftus looked like he was going down the same path. He has since proven he has not.

Alex Dalton: Why air all this on a public forum?

We’re not airing any private issues here, we’re talking about what John publicly did. In a public forum. That’s why.

John, that’s a great post. Now I feel like I’m back in reality again. Thank you!

You confirm what I said earlier, that in fact you agree with Daniel Finke, as I was certain you did. That’s why I didn’t understand why you attacked him for it (and I still don’t, but you’ve apologized for it and have the right bead on things now so now we can put this behind us–the correct order of events). I also still don’t understand why you attacked Natalie Reed, particularly using ad hominem and well poisoning and personal attacks, instead of just saying she misunderstood you (which she had every right to believe she didn’t, given your inexplicable assault on Daniel, which is what she was responding to), but again it looks like the air is at least cleared and we can go back to defcon 5.

Please, sincerely, be more conscious going forward of any tendency you might have to slip into fallacious attacks on people. I suggest always think first whether there is simply a misunderstanding you can correct (and then if they still don’t get it after a reasonable effort to get them to, you can criticize them for being dense). Basically, treat reasonable people reasonably. Golden Rule. I’m sure we can all agree on that.