I see a difference between being potentially incorrect about something and willfully being a jerk.
ETA: rereading it now the other person definitely shows smugness that didn’t register when I read it the first time, even though it’s not like it’s hidden.
Sorry for being a pest that lacks reading comprehension :)
I think the goal was to refute the false dichotomy by highlighting its absurdity through contrast with a modern definition. By being angry or a jerk about it, I think it reinforces the point that the idea (the false dichotomy of the meaning of the word) is as deserving of ridicule as the people who espouse it.
What was the goal in being a jerk about this?
Are you going to ask the same question to the dude making unfounded accusations of queerphobia?
I see a difference between being potentially incorrect about something and willfully being a jerk.
ETA: rereading it now the other person definitely shows smugness that didn’t register when I read it the first time, even though it’s not like it’s hidden.
Sorry for being a pest that lacks reading comprehension :)
I think the goal was to refute the false dichotomy by highlighting its absurdity through contrast with a modern definition. By being angry or a jerk about it, I think it reinforces the point that the idea (the false dichotomy of the meaning of the word) is as deserving of ridicule as the people who espouse it.