bodhisamaya Wrote:Ah, yea. I am pretty sure if someone raped me, I would have been a little offended. :/
Not that there is any difference between verbal stones being thrown at me and being raped in Peru...

I mean, of course, that you might be an exceptional case and a lot of people do mind. Granted, my example was a much more extreme exceptional case.

bodhisamaya Wrote:We can't get offended when others point out we are different (as we all are) in some way if they don't have ill intentions. Even if they do have ill intentions, no one can offend us without our permission.

This is very much similar to the point I've been trying to make.

To go off on a bit of a tangent here, the beliefs we have, as people, and the way we perceive the world, are all entirely shaped by our genetics, our environment and our personal experiences. How we react to a specific scenario depends entirely upon these factors. But we do not need to allow ourselves to be controlled by these things.

If someone insults me, my natural instinct is to become angry and lash out, because that is what we, as children, grow up seeing, be it among our friends, among our family, on TV, etc. It is also a part of our programming, as humans. However, rather than allow myself to become offended by that person's remarks, I can instead take a moment to pause and consider the situation. People insult others in order to make themselves feel superior. If I insult this person back or get angry, not only will that person succeed in what they were intending to do in the first place--make me upset--but I will inevitably be no better than them. In other words, I can allow my feelings to control my life, or I can try to disconnect myself from the situation and reflect on the circumstances. That is not to say that there is anything wrong with emotions--for example, although it may not seem like it, I'm actually a very emotional person--but these emotions can very much cloud our judgment.

I can lose my job and melodramatically fling myself on the couch, sobbing uncontrollably and crying about how I will end up living in the gutter, eating cat food, or I can take it as it is and do my best to find another job. In one scenario, I am allowing my feelings to overtake my judgment. In the other, I am separating myself from my emotions and viewing the situation in a rational manner.

In other words, we can choose to be offended, or we can choose to, momentarily, set aside our emotions, and look at the situation from another perspective.

In my opinion, the goal of this discussion should not be to convince others to agree with us, but to open ourselves to other points of views so that we can get a better understanding of one another and where we are coming from. I don't think we should be trying to convince others to think what we think, because that is an act in futility. Instead, we should listen to each others opinions and try to understand where they are coming from, so that we can better interact with one another without getting angry or offended if a similar scenario occurs again.

I think it's important that we understand that our opinions and viewpoints are not the be-all, end-all; as much as we want to think that we are far more enlightened compared to our peers, we only see ourselves as correct, in our own worlds. But that's not reality.

Personally, I think it's impossible, and a little ridiculous to attempt to navigate the mind-field that is other people's offended feelings. I may not use a particular word around you, in order to spare your feelings or to facilitate further good rapport, but I'm not going to completely change how I think or how I express myself when not around you just because so that it suits your own personal world view. I think it's a little extreme to expect that of anyone. The most I think we can expect out of anyone is that they do the best to respect us as individuals. But how we treat others with respect, again, varies from person to person. I think we should try to be understanding and tolerant with regards to these differences.

Jarvik7 Wrote:If she didn't mind being raped, isn't that just consensual sex?

It wasn't like date rape, it was a taxi driver who threatened her with a knife. I wasn't in Peru with them, and only ever heard her talk about it after she was back in America. I don't know if she was upset about it while she was on the trip, or anything like that. But when she got back she said she didn't mind and bragged about it.

Consensual S&M with a stranger? She is probably nuts if she brags about being raped..

Anyways, being physically assaulted and potentially being given a disease or impregnated isn't at all the same as being offended by someone's innocuous use of a word in a conversation unrelated to you.

Tzadeck Wrote:

Jarvik7 Wrote:If she didn't mind being raped, isn't that just consensual sex?

It wasn't like date rape, it was a taxi driver who threatened her with a knife. I wasn't in Peru with them, and only ever heard her talk about it after she was back in America. I don't know if she was upset about it while she was on the trip, or anything like that. But when she got back she said she didn't mind and bragged about it.

It's probably her unique way of dealing what was an extremely traumatic event. By denying she was a victim, she is denying to herself that a crime took place and that she should feel upset/guilty etc..

aphasiac Wrote:It's probably her unique way of dealing what was an extremely traumatic event. By denying she was a victim, she is denying to herself that a crime took place and that she should feel upset/guilty etc..

That was pretty much the general consensus among people who know her. Though, much more than other people I've encountered who deal with something in that way, she really didn't seem to mind. I still think about it the way you've described.

Jarvik7 Wrote:Anyways, being physically assaulted and potentially being given a disease or impregnated isn't at all the same as being offended by someone's innocuous use of a word in a conversation unrelated to you.

I didn't say that it was, and I already explained above what my example was supposed to show.

Tzadeck Wrote:I mean, of course, that you might be an exceptional case and a lot of people do mind. Granted, my example was a much more extreme exceptional case.

We make judgments and moderate our speech and behaviour every day. An awareness of the potential effects of our myriad choices is not some new onerous responsibility foisted on us. Use your judgment on a case by case basis.

You won't always agree with someone else's take on the effects of certain language at a certain time. But there's no need to respond with a blanket argument that all attempts to guide word usage is wrong. After all, what is natural language evolution?

It'd be great if certain folks would actually consider what others are saying rather than continuing to spout their limited understanding of it. Shirokuro has patiently tried to outline the issues, and some folks keep responding with narcissism, ignorance and blame. You don't need to agree, but participating in the same conversation would help. As marina says, you might come away with an understanding of another perspective.

IceCream points out that things have really improved in the past couple decades. That is mostly a result of the efforts of various individuals and groups who focus on such language issues in classrooms, books, government, the legal system, etc.

Words matter. Only 80 years ago, the Canadian Supreme Court ruled that women were not "persons" under our constitution and were therefore denied certain rights. Women were told they should simply accept their different position in society and not take it personally. They had to appeal to the Privy Council in England to get a ruling that women were "persons" and could therefore hold public office, etc. Gay and lesbian partners of several decades are still denied benefits and inheritance rights because they aren't "spouses" under various legislation. The list of examples goes on and on.

Language which excludes and differentiates based on negative identification with a group promotes inequality.

The small changes in the way we speak to our friends and our kids primes society for meaningful change that will improve the lives of different groups. Such improvements occurs faster when people - not just members of oppressed groups - increase awareness of the powerful ripple effect of little words. If often takes courage and is met with accusations such self-righteousness, over-sensitivity, insecurity(?) Let's not obstruct folks who are trying to make a positive difference. What on earth are you fighting to preserve?

mirina Wrote:In other words, we can choose to be offended, or we can choose to, momentarily, set aside our emotions, and look at the situation from another perspective.

No, unfortunately, we can't. Setting aside an emotion is an intellectual concept that usually falls apart in practice. The only way to gain any sort of control over one's emotions is to literally practice having someone offend you over and over while you actively attempt to control your emotional response. Even then the emotion still appears. It's just presented as something else (like sadness into anger), or you aren't even aware you are experiencing it. So, save for a situation where you're being abused on a regular basis, or one where someone is kind enough to help you practice, emotional control is hardly an option.

Quote:but I'm not going to completely change how I think or how I express myself when not around you just because so that it suits your own personal world view.

Humans aren't static creatures. Are opinions change on a daily basis. I encourage you to educate yourself a bit more on the issue. Even if your view hasn't changed afterward I suspect you'd at least be a little more sensitive to the issue.

Quote:I think we should try to be understanding and tolerant with regards to these differences.

Are we really being understanding and tolerant in saying, "I say what I say and if you're offended... your fault"? Isn't that just asking the other party to understand and tolerate you whilst not doing the same?

先輩 Wrote:The small changes in the way we speak to our friends and our kids primes society for meaningful change that will improve the lives of different groups. Such improvements occurs faster when people - not just members of oppressed groups - increase awareness of the powerful ripple effect of little words. If often takes courage and is met with accusations such self-righteousness, over-sensitivity, insecurity(?) Let's not obstruct folks who are trying to make a positive difference. What on earth are you fighting to preserve?

☆_★

*tears slowly falls from corner of eye*

kazelee Wrote:

mirina Wrote:In other words, we can choose to be offended, or we can choose to, momentarily, set aside our emotions, and look at the situation from another perspective.

No, unfortunately, we can't. Setting aside an emotion is an intellectual concept that usually falls apart in practice. The only way to gain any sort of control over one's emotions is to literally practice having someone offend you over and over while you actively attempt to control your emotional response. Even then the emotion still appears. It's just presented as something else (like sadness into anger), or you aren't even aware you are experiencing it. So, save for a situation where you're being abused on a regular basis, or one where someone is kind enough to help you practice, emotional control is hardly an option.

As I stated in my comment, we do have instincts that at first cause us to respond a certain way, but we should not become puppets to these instincts. Of course I may feel a certain way, at first, due to a certain stimulus, but to alleviate these feelings, I must step back momentarily and logically, rationally consider the situation.

Whether or not you feel a certain way, at first, does not matter. I may feel bad when I lose my job, but it becomes a problem if I think to myself, "Well I feel this way and I can't help it," and do not put forth any effort to see the situation from a logical perspective. If we were not, as humans, able to set aside how we feel, for the moment, then we would never act rationally. If you don't try, in any way, to set aside your anger in an argument, then not only could you be verbally abusive, but emotionally and physically abusive as well.

kazelee Wrote:

Quote:but I'm not going to completely change how I think or how I express myself when not around you just because so that it suits your own personal world view.

Humans aren't static creatures. Are opinions change on a daily basis. I encourage you to educate yourself a bit more on the issue. Even if your view hasn't changed afterward I suspect you'd at least be a little more sensitive to the issue.

Why is it that my opinion has to change, but yours does not? It seems that you are doing precisely what I stated in my comment: assuming that you are right, and I am wrong; that you are more enlightened than myself. But neither you nor I know whether or not we are correct; we only see things as we are. It appears that you think that if I "educate" myself enough on this topic, that I will somehow hold an opinion such as your own, because yours is the "correct" opinion. But you have absolutely no idea what I do or do not know about this topic, and even if I shared all of the same knowledge you do--which, you do not know whether I do or not--I would still not hold the same opinion, simply because I am a different person.

I could similarly say that you should educate yourself on how attempting to silence other's speech--either through society or through government--for fear of "offense" can gradually lead to the loss of individuals rights. People, in my opinion, should not be afraid to express themselves for fear of offending others. You may not think that what we are discussing could lead to a loss of personal expression; I do. Just as I do not think that what we are discussing could lead to further oppression of minority groups; but you do. Why is it, however, that you are somehow correct, and I am not? Why is your opinion more valid than mine? Why must I "educate" myself, but you are not required to do so similarly? Why do you assume that your "education" on this matter is superior to mine? Because my opinion isn't yours, and your opinion is naturally "right"?

kazelee Wrote:

Quote:I think we should try to be understanding and tolerant with regards to these differences.

Are we really being understanding and tolerant in saying, "I say what I say and if you're offended... your fault"? Isn't that just asking the other party to understand and tolerate you whilst not doing the same?

Has anyone actually stated as such in this thread? I still stand by the personal opinion that I cannot control how another person feels or reacts to what I say, I think that's a logical and accurate statement. But that's very different from, "If you get offended by what I say, it's you're fault."

Furthermore, I think "If I say what I want to say and you're offended, it's you're fault," is equal to, "You have to stop saying these words, because I think it's wrong to say them."

mirina Wrote:If we were not, as humans, able to set aside how we feel, for the moment, then we would never act rationally. If you don't try, in any way, to set aside your anger in an argument, then not only could you be verbally abusive, but emotionally and physically abusive as well.

Quote:

kazelee Wrote:

Quote:but I'm not going to completely change how I think or how I express myself when not around you just because so that it suits your own personal world view.

Humans aren't static creatures. Are opinions change on a daily basis. I encourage you to educate yourself a bit more on the issue. Even if your view hasn't changed afterward I suspect you'd at least be a little more sensitive to the issue.

Why is it that my opinion has to change, but yours does not?

Everyone's has to change at some point. By not educating yourself, you do yourself a disservice.

Quote:It seems that you are doing precisely what I stated in my comment: assuming that you are right, and I am wrong; that you are more enlightened than myself. But neither you nor I know whether or not we are correct; we only see things as we are. It appears that you think that if I "educate" myself enough on this topic, that I will somehow hold an opinion such as your own, because yours is the "correct" opinion.

No... I think you'd be able to make a more informed/less reactionary decision though. How do you decide for yourself that something is right or wrong with out seeing both sides of the coin?

Quote:But you have absolutely no idea what I do or do not know about this topic, and even if I shared all of the same knowledge you do--which, you do not know whether I do or not--I would still not hold the same opinion, simply because I am a different person.

Okay =)

Quote:I could similarly say that you should educate yourself on how attempting to silence other's speech--either through society or through government--for fear of "offense" can gradually lead to the loss of individuals rights.

I have.

Quote:People, in my opinion, should not be afraid to express themselves for fear of offending others. You may not think that what we are discussing could lead to a loss of personal expression; I do. Just as I do not think that what we are discussing could lead to further oppression of minority groups; but you do.

I want to agree here. Personal expression already has limits. It's one the trade-offs of living in a society. You are not an anarchist, yes?

Quote:Why is it, however, that you are somehow correct, and I am not?

A correct opinion. That's a interesting one.

Quote:Why is your opinion more valid than mine?

I think the answer you want here is, "it's not." Altruistically... though... who knows, right?

Quote:Why must I "educate" myself, but you are not required to do so similarly?

I do.

Quote:Why do you assume that your "education" on this matter is superior to mine? Because my opinion isn't yours, and your opinion is naturally "right"?

You agree with me that words are powerful, yes? You agree with that words can do harm, yes? You agree with a sharp object can do harm as well, yes? A sharp object can be used as a weapon, yes? Then words that can do harm can be used as weapons, yes?

Instruction on how to use a weapon, while not guaranteeing that the weapon will be used with any amount of sense, is a safer, thus more benefitial in the long run than simply swinging the weapon recklessly, yes? So, let's stop advocating the reckless swinging of the weapon.

Quote:

kazelee Wrote:

Quote:I think we should try to be understanding and tolerant with regards to these differences.

Are we really being understanding and tolerant in saying, "I say what I say and if you're offended... your fault"? Isn't that just asking the other party to understand and tolerate you whilst not doing the same?

Has anyone actually stated as such in this thread?

Yes.... unfortunately.

Quote:I still stand by the personal opinion that I cannot control how another person feels or reacts to what I say, I think that's a logical and accurate statement. But that's very different from, "If you get offended by what I say, it's you're fault.

It's actually the same idea only temporally displaced. The responsibility is pushed on to the affected party.

[I can't control whether this guy will bleed or not when I wildly swing my axe.]

vs

[It's not my fault he didn't duck]

If the axe wasn't being swung recklessly would he need to duck?

Quote:Furthermore, I think "If I say what I want to say and you're offended, it's you're fault," is equal to, "You have to stop saying these words, because I think it's wrong to say them."

That's not my argument. I'm saying: read the damned instruction booklet, first. Take responsibility for the words you use. Recognize their power. Then, use them as you see appropriate.

Sounds like those who are arguing to preserve the use of gay as a general insult rather than encouraging its decay from the language by those who aren't homophobic--(what do you think of 'fag' as a general insult, the way South Park addresses? Is that also unrelated to homosexuality? Do you really believe that?) are speaking from a rather sheltered, heterosexist perspective. I have the feeling they have very few if any close gay friends, and if they did or even if they didn't, they would not use that language around folks who identify as gay, or around figures in their life where they'd be perfectly able to use other colloquial words to say 'that sucks'--despite claiming there's no relation and claiming they refuse to curtail their words. I also imagine such people don't spend much time thinking about discrimination against homosexuals aside from some highly abstract and theoretical notions that they rarely apply to the real world.

I hope the people at Southpark are reading this thread so they can make a parody

#1- Speak in way that brings comfort, not hurt, to others. Life is painful enough already for everyone and none of us know the degree to which others have experienced it.
#2- Don't get your panties in a wad if others don't follow rule #1

I am afraid certain insights will only come with experience and age.

Maybe only when someone personally gets affected by one of those insulting terms, will they be able to understand the way the human brain works.
Of course you can rationalize, and try to contain the emotions and memories certain words can call upon. But if you want to be a nice person, you'd not want to call upon these emotions and memories in a person.

In my country it's popular practice to use deceases as cuss words. Especially cancer is very popular. Which is all fun and all, since it has pronunciation qualities making it a rather good one. But imagine having a dear friend of family member suffering from it of having died because of it, every time you hear the word cancer, your mind will automatically link it to that friend or family member. Making you feel bad.
Recently one of the professional soccer players with a mom who has cancer got 'attacked' at a match by the supporters of the other team. Which was rather awful for him.
These supporters got sentenced to some talks about cancer as well as meeting and interviewing people suffering from cancer.

So I guess you're on the right path nest0r, people would probably be much more aware of the words they use, if they have personal experience and with that a clear image in their head of all the bad stuff that can come with these words. Until that happens, I don't think that insight will come.

No, they don't have to deal with it on their own, because every time someone insensitively uses a label for a discriminated minority or a hate word for that minority as a general insult, I or the many like me will discourage them from using it on the grounds that it is childish and contributes to the insidious, prevailing attitude that marginalizes homosexuality precisely by perpetuating the negativity associated with it in unrelated areas and burying awareness of it to those who have the luxury of being distanced from it.

It's also not appropriate to speak of a loss in competition as 'oooh you just got raped' on a daily, widespread basis, especially not if there's a rape victim around, and especially when much rape goes unreported, and victims are in such a state that on every level, even the linguistic ones, they need the support that doesn't treat them as lesser people somehow when they are raped, and a small but pervasive part of this would be to address the dynamics of shame that lie hidden under those words rather than add salt to the wounds by treating the subject so flippantly. I'm fairly certain that usage is limited to gamer culture precisely because people instinctively get that. Likewise with 'gay' being limited to children or childish internet users with the comforts of anonymity and virtual detachment.

But sadly it's in schools that this sort of awareness is needed most. Children committing suicide because at every level they are bombarded with negativity about their sexuality is something that should never happen, but it has. I am pretty sure your friend wasn't simply bored by those words, and even if they were so spectacularly thick-skinned, others definitely are not. Likewise, teachers have a tough enough time as it is in rooting out homophobic slurs without having to apathetically respond to other uses of 'gay' and 'fag' as if evolution is this impenetrable force that they can't affect and should just look aside entirely because the waters of contexts and connotations are too murky.

Nor should anyone who uses language treat it so, they should always be aware that it goes both ways, and even if they can't eliminate homophobia or avoid slurs, they can mitigate the damage and ask their friends and allies to help as well, in whatever small ways they can, without having to worry that their allies' support is so conditional that they must tip toe and be sure not to annoy them by stating unequivocally that yes, many find using 'gay' or 'fag' as a general insult to be part of a huge problem.

This thread is still going? And every reply is the same? It's been 6 pages guys let's just get back to learning nihongo.

mezbup Wrote:This thread is still going? And every reply is the same? It's been 6 pages guys let's just get back to learning nihongo.

Done and done. ;p

It is comforting to know as a society have evolved to the point we are sensitive to the effects of mere words. Really though, if words truly do hurt, it is past time for a field trip to India, Haiti, the Philippines, Mexico, or anywhere where the minutes pass in relative torture compared to our daily lives. What ever is the worst insult someone can toss at you will be like having roses thrown at you after having your eyes opened to what real pain is.
Time for some un-PC humor: Male Inequality

Of course these things happen and you deal with it.
I don't go berserk on my teachers when they talk about Alzheimers, while I have dad of only 50 years old that doesn't even know who I am anymore. Neither do I mind if someone makes a good joke about it. But that doesn't mean, I shouldn't mind if it would get used in a derogatory sense randomly. I'm certain I would. And if necessary I'll speak up about it, and if not I'll just try not to be around that person. the same goes for other derogatory terms I find offensive or rude to use. If someone in my personal sphere uses these, I will tell them how they make me feel, and or start to ignore them. Because really why should I change my feelings, if it's a small courtesy for another person to stop the use of these words?

Icecream and everyone you can do whatever you want. I really don't care, as you're not in my personal sphere, and the way you lead your way is your own business.
But over my own actions I do care, and I consider it to be good practice not be offensive or insulting to anyone, if it's unnecessary to do so, and easy to avoid.
Besides I know what a bad impression it makes to use such words, and I don't want people to get such a bad impression of me. So it's mostly in my own interest to act this way.

For other people it would be the same. It's a matter of the way one looks at life. And people just look upon this differently. nothing to be done about it

bodhisamaya Wrote:Time for some un-PC humor: Male Inequality

***** that was funny. That woman is so coarse but those men really just needed a beer and a good night out at the titty bar instead of "seeking solace in the woods". Haha.

Pretty darn interesting how the tables have slowly turned as a whole.

Swearing to be supportive and at the very same time keeping beating the same person you promise to protect just to prove him how unfair the world is and how he needs to learn to live with it is such a hypocrisy... and telling others to ignore it and go look somewhere else where people get killed instead is even worse.

The ironic thing is, those who tend to be supportive of liberal views and ideas of universal equality are also those who joke the most about them. Go watch Fox news. They are very careful not to use harsh language. Go to Comedy Central. They use every offensive angle possible to tell a joke. Who is the core audience of each network? Which approach is more helpful?
Taking an extreme view always, always hurts the cause you believe in. Got to learn to laugh at things. When people laugh, they let their guard down and real dialogue happens.

I use whatever words I want, which include: retard, gay, fag, etc. Only with my friends. If this isn't okay for you then you're too sensitive in my opinion. On that note, I hate when people are then picky about who or what they are. Example: if you're black I'm going to call you black, not African American or colored. Even my black friend agrees. Just like if somebody is white (i.e. me) then I'll call them white, not Caucasian. If you're Asian then you're Asian, not Oriental.

I like to think, from watching politics occasionally on "The Daily Show," that there are too many stupid people that over-analyze this kind of crap.

Edit: I forgot to mention that I only use the words I use in the correct situation. I don't just randomly yell out such things.

IceCream Wrote:you asked earlier, what am i trying to protect?

i understand, that to a lot of you, i seem like a complete shithead right now. I mean, why am i arguing so strongly about this?

I just don't think that you're seeing the full issues, at all, or the negative effects overall you have on the people you are trying to protect, by trying to curtail the use of words. Not to mention just how offensive it is, to spend so much time and effort on a peripheral issue when there is real homophobia and marginalisation going on. Unfortunately, the real issues get lost underneath discussions about political correctness all the time. The homophobics can hide from changing their actual opinions by escaping to anti pc arguments.
I find it quite shocking that people who i think are quite intelligent in general, are failing to see this.

What you don't seem to get is that I'm not asking to forbid this word usage on this forum let alone censor it on even higher level. What I'm asking is for you personally to actually consider pros and cons of using it right here and right now.

The word 'gay' in a meaning of 'bad' without any connection to homosexuality just doesn't exist yet. This thread makes it pretty obvious it's kinda on halfway there, as a lot of people still do make this insulting connection that obviously gave birth to this new meaning. If you have any other version of how this usage came to life, please share.

So what we are fighting for now is whether this meaning of the word goes to the future or gets stuck in the past, because language is alive and we change it by the way we use it every day.

When I imagine a young boy confused about his sexuality having to live among his mates that use the word 'gay' to describe all the things they hate and finding out the very same word describes him and his future, and not being mature enough to distinguish the two (neither will his friends be, btw), I think I'd rather not work on making this meaning permanently acceptable.

My question is: what do you think of that makes you want to keep this meaning for the future so badly? Will it make this world any better or something? As far as I don't know the answer for this, I kind of feel what you are protecting here is your right not to care and change your speaking habits even if they were originally a mistake. You seem to expect that others accept your ignorance (or however else you call 'not meaning it when using a word that means it') as an act of good will or neutrality, and you blame them for taking offense. It does seem rather egoistic and hypocritical combined with your constant words on how you are protective of minorities. I don't like you when you do this, although I always had symphathy for you from your posts in other threads.

bodhisamaya,
I love laughing things off. But I do so only for things that can hurt me personally. Laughing at the problems of others is a completely different thing. I'd feel like an ass doing so.

bodhisamaya Wrote:The ironic thing is, those who tend to be supportive of liberal views and ideas of universal equality are also those who joke the most about them. Go watch Fox news. They are very careful not to use harsh language. Go to Comedy Central. They use every offensive angle possible to tell a joke. Who is the core audience of each network? Which approach is more helpful?
Taking an extreme view always, always hurts the cause you believe in. Got to learn to laugh at things. When people laugh, they let their guard down and real dialogue happens.

Indeed. They don't use that language in a thoughtless way, they do it with meaning, or clearly satirical. There's a visible 'seam'. Even satire has its weaknesses, if it isn't done in a way that's recognizable as satire, or is simply poorly executed with no real purpose, because once it hits the media ecology it becomes a part of the overall discourse and permutations and interpretations therein. The reason they are so calculated and layered, with various subtle cues that enhance the humour and subvert norms, et cetera, is because it's so effective at making people think about these things, about looking at the media differently, pointing out the insidious things that are hidden by those with the luxury to do so.

Oops, gave the lie to what I said to mezbup. Now.... done and done!

iAurora,
I think Japanese society is a good example how people who want to hate will do so with language no matter how polite the language they use becomes. I am completely oblivious to insults being given through seemingly the most harmless of conversations. Until later, when I wonder why one party is so sad and ask what the cause was. It is best to pay more attention to motivation than the actual words being used. The sexual confusion associated with teen-agers is not unique to homosexuals. I can't imagine anyone feeling more confused than I did.
Eliminating hurtful words, though a good rule of thumb for personal speech, will be little more than a speed bump for bullies who want to inflict emotional harm.