You’ve perfectly described the mechanism, but drawn the wrong conclusion. The power isn’t ‘given’ by individuals being sensitive; it’s inherited from the word’s historical use as a tool of oppression and violence. That weight is a social fact, not a personal choice.
To use an analogy: a gun is a real weapon because it causes physical harm. A slur is a social weapon because it invokes that history to cause psychological and social harm. The harm is no less real to its targets.
Your argument ultimately suggests that the targets of historical violence should also bear the burden of dismantling the tools used against them, while the rest of us do nothing. I fundamentally disagree with that premise. We have reached an impasse, and I see no value communicating / explaining this premise to you any further.
I agree that we should do something, defend the person/group being attacked at least, and making sure that the historical circumstances that make a slur a slur no longer apply as a current context.
But that does not solve the issue either. Take “retard” or “idiot” for example. There was one word, became a slur, then the new non-slur one became the new slur, and so on.
That happens with all the slurs. Same with “swear words” like fuck. There is freck, it means exactly the same, used in the same context. Somehow that word is good and the other is bad. And at some point freck will become a swear word.
We should, at all points, defend and protect others being harassed or attacked if possible. What I’m arguing is that empowering those words is part of the issue why they are weaponized, and a futile attempt because other words will be used with the same intent in their place. It is not useful to censor the language.
I’m sorry that you see no value in discussing further, but thank you for doing it until this point at least, you have been the only one debating in good faith.
![The true beauty behind Valve's "hands-off" approach to moderating group chats [CW: Racism]](https://crazypeople.online/pictrs/image/572ed67f-7951-4688-aa83-1e3f9ae46487.png){kind=link}
You’ve perfectly described the mechanism, but drawn the wrong conclusion. The power isn’t ‘given’ by individuals being sensitive; it’s inherited from the word’s historical use as a tool of oppression and violence. That weight is a social fact, not a personal choice.
To use an analogy: a gun is a real weapon because it causes physical harm. A slur is a social weapon because it invokes that history to cause psychological and social harm. The harm is no less real to its targets.
Your argument ultimately suggests that the targets of historical violence should also bear the burden of dismantling the tools used against them, while the rest of us do nothing. I fundamentally disagree with that premise. We have reached an impasse, and I see no value communicating / explaining this premise to you any further.
I agree that we should do something, defend the person/group being attacked at least, and making sure that the historical circumstances that make a slur a slur no longer apply as a current context.
But that does not solve the issue either. Take “retard” or “idiot” for example. There was one word, became a slur, then the new non-slur one became the new slur, and so on.
That happens with all the slurs. Same with “swear words” like fuck. There is freck, it means exactly the same, used in the same context. Somehow that word is good and the other is bad. And at some point freck will become a swear word.
We should, at all points, defend and protect others being harassed or attacked if possible. What I’m arguing is that empowering those words is part of the issue why they are weaponized, and a futile attempt because other words will be used with the same intent in their place. It is not useful to censor the language.
I’m sorry that you see no value in discussing further, but thank you for doing it until this point at least, you have been the only one debating in good faith.