It seems to me that there is a more diverse spectrum of hurtful words (of which slurs are a subset) than is commonly understood, and where they lie on the spect

It seems to me that there is a more diverse spectrum of hurtful words (of which slurs are a subset) than is commonly understood, and where they lie on the spectrum can have different moral implications. - On the one extreme, there are trigger words peculiar to particular individuals that are not widely known, which also have neutral everyday meanings. It's difficult to fault a person for uttering them. - Then there are words that are hurtful against particular communities, but their slur status are not widely known and they also have a common neutral meaning. - There are also words with a widely known slur status but with neutral meanings that are entrenched (e.g. retarded). - And of course there are words like the n-word that everybody uses for the slur meaning, even when they don't mean to directly offend. People make everyday words into slurs all the time when they decide to communicate an insult with them. And even among widespread slurs not all slurs trigger hurt to an equal degree; at one extreme when a word is intended as a slur is uttered by a weak person and there is no history of tolerated bigotry associated with the slur, it is typically less effective at hurting. > I’m guessing you’re not the subject of any slurs. When it comes to slurs, use-mention isn’t nearly as much of a distinction as you think. Do you suppose if among (black) people who frequently use the n-word to establish closeness, reporting on someone using it as the n-word as a slur would be just as unacceptable as using it directly intending to insult (as improbable as the latter would happen)?