Canada

I personally have completely nixed the R word from my vocabulary. I agree that there was a time when some terms were super offensive, or the history of a term is one leaded in negative use towards marginalized peoples. I'm just not convinced that these terms in particular are ones I need to care about.

Would you consider this from another perspective — if you accept that people should be able to determine what they are called/named, a corollary is to avoid using descriptors for them, or idiomatic expressions, that they say they are finding contribute to systematic bias against them? Or that they find demeaning and experience as micro aggressions?

The premise here doesn't apply. People I use these terms to refer to, I deny their freedom to be called as they wish. Instead I tend to call them nazis, pieces of shit, fascists, and the like.

The Deaf have let us know that these words are still harmful. As one of the most isolated and marginalized communities North America, should their concern about language not be enough to give hearing people pause?

However, if I accept your premise, I don't see how "allowing others to be referred to as they wish" leads into a conclusion of "allowing others to dictate how I speak of others". This is non-sequiteur.

I'm no stranger to listening to the marginalized, and, like most people, experience discrimination and have slurs I don't want others to use, so I already do understand accepting that some terms are unacceptable, but it's a matter of the barometer.

English doesn’t have a the equivalent of L’Academie Française to arbitrate accepted language and usage. So, it becomes an evolving societal conversation of usage.

Most languages are like this. The reason L'Academie Française exists is merely to marginalize and suppress "improper French", which before WWI was dozens of languages across the country. Paris French was standardized and languages were destroyed.

Surely then, it’s on all of us to listen to those who are saying how old names and expressions, that have negative connotations, are harming them?

Agreed completely. Some good examples are the N word, the R word, the T word, the gay F word. These are all abject slurs that continue to be used to harm people today. Beyond that, I'm gonna use examples from my own communities for obvious reasons of comfort, and respect; terms like fairy, sissy, transsexual, gay, and homosexual all have various degrees of harm behind them. They often are used to capture caricatures of people like me and apply any negativity from those words unto me. Depending on the context, these words are undoubtedly offensive, but in other contexts, are inoffensive. Of course none of these hit the same notes as "dumb" does for the deaf community, as "dumb" is used colloquially as a term to insult, either seriously or jokingly, so I can't directly relate in this regard. If I had experience of people referring to deaf people as "dumb" in my lifetime, my perspective would also be different, but that's not my reality.^This may come down to privilege, but it is also the reality within which I live. I cannot deny my reality without getting actual context of it; beyond simple, theoretical whataboutisms.

Surely then, it’s on all of us to listen to those who are saying how old names and expressions, that have negative connotations, are harming them?

It is on all of us to do this, yes. It's not on us to accept anything any marginalized person says ever without question. That's an improper ask.

You seem to be making the case, on the other hand that, able people should be exempt from considering how our word-choices impact others as long as we feel an expression has fallen into such common usage that it has become disconnected from its origin, and can only cause harm when used in a context that evokes its original meaning.

Yes. A decent example for this, with a term that impacts me, is an abbreviation for a transmission.

Or, your position is that if someone doesn’t don’t see the problem, it isn’t one. Interestingly enough, this is almost exactly one of the generally accepted definitions of privilege - not perceiving something is a problem if it’s not a problem for you personally.

No, I definitely agree that people are blind to problems that are surrounding by them. I disagree that this is a definition of privilege though, as I am no less privileged for believing it to be a problem. I don't lose my linguistic privilege simply because I acknowledge, and to the best of my ability make efforts to see the problems that impact the people who don't speak the common language of my region. If this is an accepted definition of privilege, it's an entirely bad one.

The number of downvotes OP has received suggests this community is less civil than I had thought.

It's an unpopular opinion generally anywhere online, and people dislike being told what they should say or not; they often perceive it as radicalism and paint radicalism with a broad, negative brush. If OP posted this in a community that was specifically tailored to the deaf or the disabled, you'd definitely see a different reaction.

I hope that I come off as good faith to you. I'm trying to be thoughtful and reasonable in my responses. In other comments I have mentioned where I personally stand on these terms. I have no desire to "combat" people with bad faith arguments like many people in this thread seem to be, and legitimately just want to find some understanding. I'm sure I said some shit wrong in this post but I don't really feel like revising the whole thing to make sure everything in it is perfect. Forgive me if I said something wrong, or even entirely out of my ass.