Why does it matter if they think it's a slur? Are you serious? Because that' what your whole argument is about--whether or not the term under discussion is a slur or not.
This seems to be an implicit argument that whether it's an unreappropriated slur depends entirely on the listener's beliefs and not at all upon the speaker's beliefs. You are entitled to your opinion there; again, I am not interested in discussing the logistics of whether or how slurs can be reappropriated.
You don't seem to realize that you were making any kind of assumptions or implying anything when you argued that the OP wasn't using a slur when she called people former dykes. But obviously, that too was based on the speaker's beliefs, you simply didn't acknowledge that or acknowledge that there could be any scenario in which it might be based on the listener's beliefs. If you're not "interested" in that, that's fine, but I'm pointing out that it was part of your argument whether you realized it or not
Why did you embark on this argument at all, if you don't think it has any relevance, moral or otherwise?
I'm not saying it doesn't, I'm just not interested in the morality part of it.
No, you can find it yourself, if you've already forgotten what you said. Here's a hint, it's when you were talking about qualifying the word [], with an adjective.
I'm aware of what I said, and I'm aware that you're not characterizing my argument accurately. If you're not willing to quote me, then there's no point in discussing it, you can just take my word for it that you're not characterizing my argument accurately.
If you feel I'm not characterizing it correctly, that's on you to correct it, and you would need to find your own quote if you wish to make that argument.
Well that's a stupid argument, because you don't know what she thinks.
I have a very good idea of what she thinks, because written language is a tool for communicating thoughts.
yes it is. And she didn't write anything about detailed scenarios and locations and contexts in which she would be ok with being called or calling others a dyke. So you cannot know what she thinks.
yes, they are. This is what I have been attempting to get into your skull. Former [] is a slur. Former [] is a slur.
But it's intended as a reappropriated slur if the speaker is a current member of the group to whom the unqualified slur would be applied. Hence it is not intended hatefully, as I said in the beginning.
You may have "said" this, but you didn't support your argument. That is what I have been demonstrating. That has been the substance of my argument. You're not making an argument here, you're just saying, "I feel a speaker part of a current group to whom an unqualified slur" blah blah blah. yes, and I have been trying with detailed arguments, to show you why that's wrong.
"former []" is one group of people. [] is another group of people. A "[]" calling someone else a "former []" is talking to a member of another group.
This isn't in dispute.
You, and she, are also making the questionable assumption
Don't assume what I think; I'm limiting my discussion to what she thinks.
You know exactly where, and when, and with whom she would refer to herself as a []?
It is sufficient for our discussion to know that she does refer to herself as one.
It's not, because we don't know when she doesn't refer to herself as one. And that is crucial information
I am sorry if you don't realize the implications of your argument, but you are indeed arguing about the morality and logistics of reappropriation
No, I'm not.
"No I'm not" is not really an argument, but ok