It is not Shaming Language if it Does Not Shame You
You see, shaming language is meant to inflict shame. Correct? So if it does not actually inflict shame, then it is not “shaming”. . . is it? It has failed in its purpose, hasn't it?
The best way to handle “shaming language” is to not experience shame when somebody directs it at you. If you do not feel ashamed, then the language has failed to shame you. And so, ipso facto, it cannot be “shaming" language at all, can it?
Also, the phrase "shaming language" suggests that anybody directing such language at you has the power or the authority to shame you in the first place. And would you willingly grant such a power or such an authority to just anybody?
So why not nip this whole business in the bud? Instead of calling it "shaming language", how about simply calling it ridicule or slander?