'Retard' used to be the politically correct term for 'Mongoloids.' Food for thought.
Do you know what "food for thought" means? It means "here is a thought-provoking idea that may cause you to reflect upon its mysteries." "mongoloid" meant "downs syndrome" for a hundred years. For a hundred years before that it meant "asian." "idiot" used to mean "disabled" too so I ask you - why does any of this matter? Here's your food for thought: Autism didn't hit clinical acceptance until 1980 so by the time people were being called "autistic" (correctly) the term "mongoloid" had been taboo for over 20 years. And somewhere in there, you're making a point to defend 4chan? I think? Because they're somehow innovatively offensive with their slurs so leave Britney alone or some shit? I grew up surrounded by Indian land, passing Bureau of Indian Affairs trucks, during the rise of Indian casinos and when I moved from New Mexico to Washington people got all hot'n'bothered that I used the term "Indian" instead of "Native American" because up here? They're Native Americans, not Indians. So what did I do? I started referring to Native Americans. Except when I'm in Canada, where they're First Nations. It's rare that the whole world is wrong except you, and it's rare that you can't make things a little better for everybody by trying on their terminology. 4chan? They're actively trying to turn harmless words into offensive ones - kinda like how PePe is now a nazi. And I wouldn't be jumping down your throat other than the fact that apparently, you approve of the process.
Approve doesn't enter into it. Language changes and evolves over time. This is usually an inoffensive process. Clinical jargon regarding mental illness of various kinds gets hijacked and used for slurs. Any word can be offensive, if said with offensive intent. We should aspire to be harder to offend. More capable of seeing that the intent is just to cause offense for offense sake and not take it. In this example, someone on an anonymous imageboard said 'This thing that was previously inoffensive is now racist and offensive' and the meme propagated. If people don't respond to it, it dies.
I don't wanna jump into this mudpit but "we should aspire to be harder to offend" sounds like the rallying cry of a group of people who've enjoyed the benefit of generally not having a bunch of bad shit dumped on them. I don't particularly think we should try to be more offended, but not responding to shitty behavior is its own sort of poison. We're beyond an age (if ever there was one) where you can just ignore it 'till it goes away. Think it's more constructive to aspire to be as decent a people as we can. That involves not cheerleading intentionally offensive rhetoric (no matter how facetious) AND calling people out when they do so
[citation needed] So that those who excel at offensiveness must struggle harder? Right. If I don't tell my neighbor kid to stop throwing rocks at my windows, eventually he'll get bored, right? It is the function of society to police its own boundaries, not to assume that no one will be affected if the worst among us are allowed to run rampant. Freedom of speech is allowing the bottom-dwellers of 4chan to call each other whatever names they want. It's also allowing everyone else to tell them that it's decidedly not okay. It's not okay.This is usually an inoffensive process.
We should aspire to be harder to offend.
If people don't respond to it, it dies.
Yes. Whose glass was broken because some people started throwing up 'OK' ? If someone is directly harmed. If violent action is taken, that's one matter. If a group of shitty middle schoolers suddenly decided that a given phrase or common part of speech actually means 'dicks' that does not mean that word changes meaning, unless everyone else acknowledges it and changes the way they behave because of it. Call them idiots and move on.So that those who excel at offensiveness must struggle harder?
If I don't tell my neighbor kid to stop throwing rocks at my windows, eventually he'll get bored, right?
A skilled rhetorician is one who can answer and defeat the argument of the opponent. A dishonest rhetorician is one who deflects, demurs, and ignores the arguments he can't win. Your argument was that 4chan should be allowed to use offensive language because in a perfect world, no one would be offended by language. By your own assertion, those who excel at offensiveness must struggle harder, rather than those who are offended appreciating the moral right to be offended. Yet when asked for examples of how the process of linguistic change is usually painless, you are silent as fuck. You're right of course. The United NiXXer College Fund is a well known niXXer charity, the KXke Defamation League keeps the Ashkenazi from prejudicial violence and one of my buddies in Los Angeles has a string of very successful gXXk restaurants because we live in a perfect world where language has no power. I love this style of rhetoric, too. "I'm sorry, I'm too stupid to understand your argument therefore everyone else is, too." It's like anti-logos. And the dumb thing is, you don't even see the counterargument fucking coming. it's like "Hi, there. I'm gonna set up a Godwin's Law trap where the fucking name of the counterargument is out there in plain view. Care to step in it?" "sure! Because I'm so blinded by my need to defend the rights of anyone to offend everyone that I'm not even going to consider historical precedent!" "Great. Have some Nazis. Thank you, drive through." And I'm truly sorry to have to bat you around like a fucking mouse, but jesus fucking christ, language can be offensive otherwise what would be the point? You are taking the logical position that those parts of linguistics we disagree with we should ignore as if it wasn't a statement of deep ignorance and you should feel bad.Whose glass was broken because some people started throwing up 'OK' ?