> It's only offensive to the people who are offended. Theoretically all > words are offensive since any word can be offensive to anyone just because > they deem it so. Censoring (i.e. changing the language) of everything to > appease everyone 1) isn't possible, 2) is foolish at best, 3) is a > waste of everyone's time, and 4) creates a power hungry mob of zealots > looking to dismantle any word they deem offensive (e.g. paper machete).
This is poor reasoning. "Foolish at best" and "waste of everyone's time" are personal opinions, not arguments. "Isn't possible" is a straw man argument. "Creates a power hungry mob of zealots looking to dismantle any word they deem offensive" is supported only with weak anecdotal evidence. Aside from its logical fallacies, this argument fails because it lacks any sort of altruism or empathy. It ultimately boils down to "I don't care what anybody else's experience is," which is the reasoning of antisocial personality disorders (per the DSM). So I'm going to as persuasive here as I would be convincing a colour-blind person that green and red are different colours. I'll try nevertheless. Before trivialising someone's feelings, perhaps expend some effort learning their struggles and what led them to find something painful. Try, if you can, to imagine being in their position. It's possible that one's brain is physically incapable of doing so, those people exist. In which case, I recommend staying out of ethical discussions in the same way that colour-blind people should stay out jobs requiring colour recognition.
