Why would I stop using it, it merely describes the group of islands. Geographic ignorance or a chip on your shoulder aren't great motivators for me to stop. Sums up the state of affairs when a perma-offended post like this is the top comment of a really interesting post.

Names are funny things, the name in question has been used for the entire archipelago, in one form or another, for thousands of years. Maybe part of the problem is the casual use of Britain to mean "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", it doesn't help that most people who live in Great Britain don't realize that the "Great" just refers to it being the largest island in the archipelago.

Personally I think that the UK should be separated back into England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Berwick-upon-Tweed. They can then individually decide whether to beg to be allowed back into the EU. The Windsor née Saxe-Coburg-Gotha clan should become private citizens like anyone else (if any country will have them)

On a more serious note, I feel that a lot of problems would be resolved by dividing much of Europe into smaller polities

I suspect the "great" Britain distinguishes it from the other Britain which is a nearby French province, ie "Grande Bretagne" vs "Bretagne". Ireland is still not British! The "British Isles" was a useful term for a dominant power while it lasted.

No. It was simply the descriptor applied to the largest island in the archipelago. The cultural layer followed, sadly England in particular and the UK in general have done little or nothing to address colonial and imperial legacy

No he's right, it has been used historically to distinguish it from Brittany. What on earth are you talking about regarding imperial legacy? It might be used in a sense to project national potency, but the naming never derived from any imperial motive. It seems to me along with your earlier comment, that you're fixated on self flagellation and a conclusion that just doesn't exist regarding the naming.

From the same Wikipedia article

"Claudius Ptolemy referred to the larger island as great Britain (μεγάλη Βρεττανία megale Brettania) and to Ireland as little Britain (μικρὰ Βρεττανία mikra Brettania) in his work Almagest (147–148 AD)"

I feel that the reference to English and UK colonial and imperial legacy is more a recognition that the term has in the present day become controversial, and, to some, offensive for a number of reasons which include: a history of oppression and/dominance, both within the archipelago and beyond; a jingoistic element within the UK population that considers that to be a good thing; the conflation of the various meanings of _great_

Those things are distinct from where the name came from ≈2,000 years ago, but speak directly to why it might be offensive today

The problem is that nobody has come up with a snappy enough alternative yet. The Good Friday Agreement uses "these islands", I think people find "Britain and Ireland" to be too long winded, what does that leave us with?

Edit: Actually "Anglo-Celtic Isles" works i suppose

Some academics apparently use "Atlantic Archipelago"

Also, they're missing the one in the botanic gardens in Dublin, the only one I know of :p "British Isles" doesn't bother me, I guess it is a bit confusing for people who don't really know what it means though.

If it's any consolation, when someone says "British Isles", that just means Britain to me.

It's synonymous with "England" and "the United Kingdom".

As a Scot I get your point, although to be honest I don't recall much need to refer to "British Isles". Wikipedia suggests "Britain and Ireland" or "Atlantic Archipelago" as alternatives.

In the US, where I live now, we have "North America" to refer to Canada, USA, Mexico. Makes me wonder if Canadians are offended by that..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Isles

Some have been known to be.