3 ms·

> For example, calling one of my own non-homosexual friends a "faggot" or "gay" is offensive. Even though I'm not homophobic and personally find it to be a funn

> For example, calling one of my own non-homosexual friends a "faggot" or "gay" is offensive. Even though I'm not homophobic and personally find it to be a funny, playful insult. Um... if you don't have anything against homosexuality then why would you use it as an insult? How is this logical? It shouldn't have anything to do with "not offending people". The real question is "What are you actually communicating?" Casual use of slurs shows at least a certain amount of unthinking disdain for others if not actual malice. Censoring referential or quoted uses of slurs may be an over-correction but the intent is not to appear disdainful or malicious. You can say whatever you want, forget about "political correctness" or "offending someone", but expect people to respond to what you're actually communicating (ignorance and disdain at best).

laichzeit0 11y ago
Well, for instance, when I'm calling someone a faggot, I'm thinking about what is typically called a "queen" in gay-lingo. Like an overly effeminate homosexual. I happen to find their behaviour and mannerisms to be funny and I have no problem with them whatsoever. Calling one of my friends a faggot is funny to me because I'm drawing an analogy between their behaviour and queenish behaviour. The point is that I find it funny, for my own personal reasons. But someone else may find it offensive, for their own personal reasons, however now my freedom of speaking this way becomes limited because of the potential for someone else to find it offensive. Going back to the original post about the author inserting ".. [horrific racial expletive deleted]" into post. I find this type of reaction to only further the agenda of limiting people from speaking freely by falsely implying that certain words may not be used because they are likely to offend. Whether they offend or not should never be a criterion for limiting the use of a word.

laichzeit0 11y ago

Well, for instance, when I'm calling someone a faggot, I'm thinking about what is typically called a "queen" in gay-lingo. Like an overly effeminate homosexual. I happen to find their behaviour and mannerisms to be funny and I have no problem with them whatsoever. Calling one of my friends a faggot is funny to me because I'm drawing an analogy between their behaviour and queenish behaviour. The point is that I find it funny, for my own personal reasons. But someone else may find it offensive, for their own personal reasons, however now my freedom of speaking this way becomes limited because of the potential for someone else to find it offensive. Going back to the original post about the author inserting ".. [horrific racial expletive deleted]" into post. I find this type of reaction to only further the agenda of limiting people from speaking freely by falsely implying that certain words may not be used because they are likely to offend. Whether they offend or not should never be a criterion for limiting the use of a word.