Ugh, my long and extremely carefully worded post got eaten as I got timed out on a cafe link.

I'll try again. (composing first in gmail which has an autosave)

smonster, I'm not trying to be contentious and I don't know how to address my use of the word "gypped" without offending you (or possibly others). And since I don't want to offend anybody I'm not going to discuss that in particular.

However, I do want to discuss this:

The bottom line is that you put your freedom to use culturally offensive words over the feelings of those offended.

That's the bottom line for any writer. I may choose not to use certain words but I would retain that choice and not have it proscribed.

My feelings about "hurt feelings" are not unlike the upthread dismissal of "fair" and five year olds. It's a very broad and subjective filter to apply to language and I think there's a significant cost to discourse when we value the potential to offend that highly over linguistic freedom/flexibility.

People's feelings can be hurt by any number of reasonable or unreasonable things. It is - in my estimation - too broad a category to be used as an overriding principle. Which is not to say that I don't give it value or weigh it.

My not-radical stance is this: The potential to offend does not necessarily trump word choice.

Let me qualify that in two ways.

Sometimes it does trump word choice. In fact, in most instances I try to be conscious of all the implications of my word choice. If I'm not actively trying to offend somebody then it's poor communication to do so. The burden is not on the listener to be unoffended. I am responsible for my words and their effect.

I'm not asserting that freedom over all over considerations. Ignorance of context is not an excuse. You can't claim your innocence if you go see Mary J. Blige at the Apollo and scream loudly, "Only a 40 minute show! How niggardly! Wait? How can you take offense? Those words are completely unrelated!"

To continue my not-radical proposition, I weigh the value of linguistic freedom, nuance and vigor in balance to the potential to offend differently than you do. I do consider both elements.

Language doesn't get hurt feelings but it can be demeaned and watered down and made weak. Euphemizing is a really pernicious attack on meaning and discourse, widely used by politicians and managers. It can become a kind of bad faith, and creates distrust. Language needs defending. I do wish that people who were keen to cull offensive words weighed and acknowledged the cost to language more.

As I said before, taking offense is censorious. Which is not in itself wrong - to the contrary it's often the right and necessary social pressure. But it does incur a cost.

(I can speak more specifically on examples of what I consider using bad faith language, particularly the damage it's caused in left wing politics if you want.)

Finally, in reference to your oblique reference to "considering my privilege." I am conscious that the broadest categories that define me (white, male, het, cis, educated etc.) align me with the dominant culture. And that I do have the privilege of Not Having To Think About A Lot of Shitty Things Because They're Not Always In My Face. But I do think about them. It's not unconsidered.

I am not arguing that my freedom to use language happens in an imaginary vacuum (aka, privilege) that don't affect others.

I am arguing that I don't value hurt feelings and offense over language. That I do value them and consider them. But I weigh them differently against that freedom of language.

Effing five year old calling everything "gay".

This is kinda true for a lot of the elementary school boys Leif knows.

You are now free to return to the conversation of actual substance and importance already in progress.

Have I mentioned how much I love this place?

That is all.

Definitely time for more wine

Language doesn't get hurt feelings but it can be demeaned and watered down and made weak. Euphemizing is a really pernicious attack on meaning and discourse, widely used by politicians and managers. It can become a kind of bad faith, and creates distrust. Language needs defending. I do wish that people who were keen to cull offensive words weighed and acknowledged the cost to language more.

To the contrary, I think it's weak writing that can't come up with a different way of stating something.

And I also think that perhaps what's being said might not need to be said. For example: my difficulty in not using "You pussy!" as a pejorative. What am I actually doing there? I'm demeaning someone, regardless of the language that I'm using to do so. Whether I say "You pussy!" or "You are a weak and ineffectual person who lacks the strength to deal with this situation," it's still demeaning. And maybe I ought not be demeaning someone to begin with.

I do wish that people who were keen to cull offensive words weighed and acknowledged the cost to language more.

Please explain to me how racial/ethnic slurs are a benefit to language and communication. Seriously, I can't wait.

JZ, if I had any money at all right now, I would be all over those dresses. Alas, I cannot afford clothes when I'm facing possible unemployment in 4 months.

And maybe I ought not be demeaning someone to begin with.

Sometimes you're just being descriptive. They already demeaned themselves by earning that description.

Please explain to me how racial/ethnic slurs are a benefit to language and communication

Yeah, I can't see what positive jewed adds to the world.

I don't use any of these insults. (Although I thoroughly enjoy hearing you all use them. The creative ones, not the ethnic ones, to clarify.) Most of them just don't come to my mind when I'm looking for an insult. I always refused to say "cocksucker" (because what's actually wrong with that? I'm one myself) because the implication is that only women and gay men suck cock and therefore sucking cock is demeaning, and that implication offends me. Same reason I don't say pussy to mean weak. (Pussies are damn strong. Most men could only aspire to be as strong as a pussy. Shove a baby out your dick and we'll see who cries the longest, motherfucker.) "Motherfucker" is my shameful secret favorite curse/insult, and I've never said it TO anyone with serious intent, because the implication there is nastier than I've ever wanted to be. "Bastard" is the word that usually comes to my mouth when I'm really mad at a guy, and "bitch" when it's a woman, and I'm trying to stop using them, but there aren't any good substitutes that feel real to me. Like, "jerkwad" is funny as hell, but I can't take it seriously as an insult.

I say things and people are "crazy" all the time (including myself). You all have gotten me thinking about how and when I use it, and when I don't. I grew up with, and lived with, and have worked with, so many people with actual mental illnesses, the word crazy doesn't even seem perjorative to me anymore. Now that I think of it, I wouldn't even call most people with a mental illness "crazy", I would call it by its clinical name. Does that make sense? Like, I wouldn't call someone with, say, Tourette's, "crazy", because I don't think having Tourette's means someone is crazy. (The symptoms might "drive them crazy" but that's a whole different meaning.) When I say someone's "crazy", I'm usually NOT referring to an actual diagnosed mental illness. I will, however, continue to refer to the paranoid schizophrenic ex-boyfriend who tried to kill me as a crazy motherfucker. My rules change for that bastard. There just is no "crazy" quite like paranoid schizophrenia. (Well, there's murderous psychopathy, but I haven't met too many of them in real life.)

Dammit, you guys, stop making me think. I come here for FUN.

And maybe I ought not be demeaning someone to begin with.

Sometimes you're just being descriptive. They already demeaned themselves by earning that description.

That's true in some cases. But sometimes I'm just being a jerk, and being demeaning isn't called for.

My mom says a teacher at her school makes her students replace "niggah" with "Ninja" as in "kickin' it with my ninjas" I thought Buffistas would like that.

It's a real contradiction, being a feminist Entourage fan, but I also love watching Dana Gordon pwn, too. And Shauna, nail-polishing badass.

Now that I think of it, I wouldn't even call most people with a mental illness "crazy", I would call it by its clinical name. Does that make sense? Like, I wouldn't call someone with, say, Tourette's, "crazy", because I don't think having Tourette's means someone is crazy. (The symptoms might "drive them crazy" but that's a whole different meaning.) When I say someone's "crazy", I'm usually NOT referring to an actual diagnosed mental illness.

And now YOU'RE making me think, dang it!