"Striker" isn't generally used in a pejorative sense. "Squatter" doesn't really seem like it's all that charged a word either. Deserter refers to soldiers who abandon their duties and forsake their responsibilities; desertion is definitely something that society should try to deter by looking badly upon deserters.
@mariel3 -- These words are NOT name calling, these words are actually descriptors, describing the specific action or set of actions a person is taking or has taken. Squatter -- The act of squatting or to squat. This was originally used in the U.S. to describe a person who illegally occupied land that was not their own. This comes from the term "to squat" specifically as in to sit on one's haunches. || Striker -- A worker who is on strike. Pretty straight forward, no history required here. || Deserter -- A member of a military force who deserts his post and/or men. Again, pretty straight forward, no history needed. || As you can see, these words are descriptors, they are in no way shape or form "name calling". These are the same as calling a person who runs a runner, a person who shoots (guns, basketballs, etc.) a shooter, a person who plays golf a golfer. Do you understand?
Striker, squatter and deserter are all words that can be interpreted as name-calling.. If you as a group choose to see these words as not name-calling, that's your prerogative (but there's no need for sarcasm).
Why is the question misleading? After all, I could say the very same thing about the word "striking".. A person who chooses not to work (thus not allowing you to your housing market) isn't actually hitting anyone are they - so isn't that misleading language? Or are you just trying to nasty, and apply double standards?
@mariel33 -- If you're talking to me, I'm sorry, I honestly meant no sarcasm by my comment, it's literally an explanation; if you're perturbed by the question "Do you understand?" I literally was asking if you understood or if you needed additional explanation on something. If you as an individual are still "interpreting" those words in a negative connotation even after a detailed explanation, that seems like a personal problem to me (again, not being mean or sarcastic there). I would have to ask you "At what point does it stop? Where do you stop being offended by uncontroversial, very straightforward grammar? What descriptive words about a person are NOT offensive to you?" Again, not sarcastic there, honest questions. I would then suggest you study up on English grammar, structure, history, etc. in order to educate yourself on the PROPER definitions and understandings of words. Again, no sarcasm intended.
By sarcasm, I was referring to the Willy Wonka image (I don't know who put it there), and the fact that my question was described as "misleading".. I mean no personal offense MakeSensePeopleDont (apologies).
Also, I'd say that the "Name-calling should be encouraged" counts as a kind of sarcasm - though that's just my interpretation.
Interpreting words such as squatter and striker and deserter as name-calling is of course arbitrary, but still intelligent nonetheless - everyone's entitled to their opinion though.
Thanks to everyone for participating.
@mariel33 -- The question is misleading because in your opening poll headline you incorrectly define proper descriptors as derogatory terms. Within proper American English Grammar, there are MANY words spelled exactly the same way that have much different definitions. For example: "Desert" which can mean a very dry region with extremely low amounts of precipitation annually, best identified by its tell-tale characteristics of sand, sun, heat, extreme temperature changes from night to day, and relatively cloudless skies. Desert also means to leave your responsibility. It all comes down to context and usage. These types of words are called "Homographs"; you should take some time to study them and understand their place in proper American English Grammar.