Your post struck me as something in pursuit of linguistic purism, so i addressed that in my initial comment, and i addressed additional problematic assumptions and sentiments that were implied by your post and later comments (which i find to be equally important), and i addressed the issue of your having a problem with the words as "self-referentially defined" because you felt them to be recursive where self-identification is given a high priority after you clarified why you felt that way--something not particularly clear from your original post.

There was no straw-manning here.
This wasn't a debate over a single point.
This was me trying to get you to address the multitude of problematic attitudes and assumptions you've expressed in this post, all of which i found to be important and relevant.



It may be functional to define it that way, i guess, but god, people will absolutely think that you're a pretentious douche if you identify yourself like that.