I don't really believe you. Among other things, "so absolutely dreadful" sounds like you're establishing a false dichotomy between what's perfectly acceptable and what's so horrible it's unforgivable. But nobody, including you, actually thinks like that. Not only is there a spectrum of behavior, but there's also context. Being a jerk is often to be avoided, but sometimes it's justified. Being mean to one person and nice to another person isn't necessarily hypocritical.
I'm not the one who says "-haver" is such a terrible thing to say, that was Emily's Cat who said that. My belief on that was Possibility D, above: she was just being hyperbolic and overdramatic. But she has claimed that no, the terminology is very dreadful and she was employing it on purpose, to make a point.
Which explanation I don't believe because the posts in question weren't
about the terminology, they simply
employed it. Attempts to explain it away as making a point are, I feel, attempts to retrofit the more recent post to those two years prior. I've been told "context" and "grok"....but without accompanying links to that context because that was not the context.
But the problem with your position is more fundamental than that. If you truly don't care about the behavior itself, then hypocrisy doesn't even matter, especially when the person you think is being hypocritical has no power.
I disagree. Principles exist: integrity, honesty, and treating others as you'd like to be treated. Claiming to be against a thing while doing it oneself is a character failing. A serious one, in many cultures. Whether the person "has power" or not is irrelevant.
And none of us (aside from the mods) have any power here. There are no consequences to anyone's hypocrisy beyond the behavior itself. You can simply ignore Emily's Cat's complaints as being irrelevant, but her alleged hypocrisy doesn't matter because her complaints would be irrelevant to you even if she wasn't hypocritical, because you don't care about the behavior either way. It only really matters if you DO care about the behavior, and you want it resolved in one direction or the other.
Are you really arguing that posters should be unchallenged on hypocrisy and contradiction? What would be the point of having a debate in a thread if it will not be an
honest debate? Or perhaps it's just this one thread that's different.
I think you do have a stance on the issue, though I don't know what it is. I think you don't want to defend it. If I'm wrong, though, we're back to your complaint about hypocrisy being irrelevant.
Again, "the issue" isn't use of terminology "[organ]-haver". "The issue" is posters posting hyperbole about how awful a terminology is, despite employing it themselves in the past. What
I think about "-haver" verbiage won't change someone else's behavior from hypocritical to honest. But since you're dying to know, I think calling someone a "[organ]-haver" is ridiculous, and makes the speaker look like a fool. It's clunky wording, and I suspect it reveals more about the speaker's psychosexual hangups than they realize.
I mean, I tend to refer to all politicians as criminals... but that is entirely figurative. I certainly don't think that felon convicted for kidnapping, torture, and murder is really someone who ought to be in charge.