Was I too quick to accept the pushback against calling Kamala "Kamala"?

I thought the antagonism to "Kamala" was a bad idea, and I said so here.

But I switched to the "Harris" approach, as you can see in the previous post.

Then somebody asked me where I got the idea that to use the first name alone would make me look as though I were declaring my opposition to her. My aim is neutrality, cruel neutrality.

So I googled and found "'Harris' or 'Kamala'? Inside the debate over calling women by their first or last name/The vice president has enough support from delegates to assure her the Democratic nomination, but what name does Kamala Harris want to go by?" (Yahoo). Excerpt:

There's that "brat" crap again, with the fuzzy font and the intentionally repulsive green color.

And we're given this from a person who, we're told, is "an expert," Melissa Baese-Berk, a professor of linguistics:

Context, relationship and intent all matter when referring to someone by their first name, Baese-Berk told Yahoo News.

“There’s a lot of debate, in part, because there’s no ‘right’ answer about this. Lots of people feel that first names are used in disrespectful ways, or are used disproportionately for individuals from marginalized communities,” said Baese-Berk.

Someone may call the vice president “Kamala” because they feel she is relatable. On the flip side, someone could use just her first name as a way of being condescending, she added.

“But calling someone by their first name or their last name isn’t by default rude or polite. It all depends on the context,” she said.... “I think it’s great we’re having this conversation. It helps us think through how we use language the way we do.”

As I said, my aim is neutrality here. Call me Althouse.