hanbroloJust hoping to provoke a discussion.
2sy_morphiendmince__words
I'm not pro-usage of the words or anything, I'm not going to condemn someone for choosing not to use them, however I am against censoring what people can and can't say in the community.
I tried my best to reread the thread several times (thrice, to be exact), and couldn't find anyone suggesting anything even remotely similar to any sort of censorship other than yourself, merely people expressing a desire for people to be more conscious of their word choice when it is possible to offend people. This seems to me to be the crux of your argument in the paragraph I quoted, and I'm dumbfounded as to what you're actually arguing against since no one here is arguing for censorship at all.
As for your point about physcotherapy and part of therapy being related to demeaning the original hurtful aspects of the word, I feel this isn't a valid support for people being allowed to say those words. Physcotherapy is such a dynamic field that there isn't really a universal way to alleviate trauma. Due to the complexity and amount of genetic material that codes for brain devolopment as well as the rapid rates of adaptation in the brain, I would be astounded if brains didn't differ enough to require different approaches for each individual person, if not every single time one meets with a patient.
Now, something else has been bothering me about your argument as well.
If I may paraphrase and grossly oversimplify your argument in order to bring something to light, it seems to me that you think this:
Person A makes the conscious decision to say "faggot", knowing that Person A will be offended.
Person B makes the conscious decision to be offended by the word "faggot", knowing Person A did not intend it in a derogatory sense.
Therefore, It is Person B's fault that they are offended and Person A is entirely justified in using virtually any language he or she wishes to as anyone who thinks anything is offensive is expressing an opinion that is supported by rather weak and double-standarded logic.
(Let me know if this summary of your argument is incorrect, I don't want to put words in your mouth, just trying to make a point.)
Even if we disregard the multitude of physcological evidence that points to the conclusion that trauma and other such reactions to words are not always entirely conscious choices, there still seems to me to be a logical contradiction here. I'm not trained in classical logic or rhetoric to the extent I wish I was, but I still fail to see how Person A is at any less of a fault than Person B. Both parties are ignoring factual evidence when they make choices (even if you're right about offense being solely a choice), whether they be emotional or physical. Why is Person A in the moral high-ground in your mind? Are they not, in this highly exaggerated example? Is your argument that humor justifies him making the choice to say "faggot" even knowing it will offend Person B? Or is he justified in saying "faggot" because Person B is making their choice to be offended without rational justification? If the last part is true, is Person B not being limited or censored as well? In other words, are people only allowed to do things if they have rational justification, and if they don't, they just have to live with what other people do? Isn't that a form of censorship in it of itself?
Look forward to your response, and I wish you wouldn't bring personal anecdotes into this argument, if you want I can have all my LGBT friends that have been hurt by the word "faggot" to make accounts and testify, and just because you and your friend like joking about stuff doesn't mean everyone does.