Your point seems to be: "People are offended all the time, you just have to deal with it" which is a reasonable point but not a relevant one to the point being made. My stance was that people have a right to free from being discriminated
against, not necessarily being offended, although it is true that most forms of discrimination happen to involve offending the victimized group. A cow being killed for leather is not an example of discrimination against vegetarians, even if it may offend a vegetarian.
The homophobic F-word isn't acceptable not only because is it offensive, but most importantly because it's also directed against a specific group of people, not for any beliefs or values they have, but simply because they happen to be male and gay. The use of the term presumes the statement that: Homosexual men have a derogatory term used to describe them as a community, whereas heterosexual men do not. It also devalues the diversity within that community by removing the right to define one's own identity, and attempts to reduce everyone to the lowest common denominator: their sexuality.
I suppose an example would be that the term "Noob" would be acceptable, even if it's offensive, whereas a pejorative term such as the F-word, the N-word (etc.) would not.
I personally think using "the word in the screen shot" shows a ridicule of the term, and how unimportant and inoffensive the word actually is. (In that private circle of friends, but I'd better be careful lest I end up back on topic..)
I'd argue this an example of downplaying the consequences that discrimination has in reality. This is based on the philosophy that de facto
discrimination only exists because of du jure
discrimination, and that because it's now legal to be openly gay/black/Jewish/whatever, that discrimination no longer really exists, and so discriminatory terms have no real meaning. This is in stark contrast to reality: gay men are far, far more likely than the average male population to attempt suicide
, for example. De facto
discrimination still definitely exists--it manifests in inequalities such as the one described in that example--and so those terms still have negative meanings.
Well I do have to disagree there. True equality is not people [kitty]-footing around the gay populace's feelings, and asking people to treat homosexuals differently like that is only going to further segregate people. Besides, who's going to tell us when we can stop sparing their feelings?
How is asking not to be discriminated against defined as "treating differently"? There is no derogatory term of abuse for heterosexual males, all anyone's asking for is that there be no derogatory term to describe homosexual males.
In any case, this discussion has moved far beyond the original remit of the thread and probably deserves its own thread on the OT board.