| > I disagree that words "become" slurs, in principle. Outside of a very few specific examples, where the term was constructed to insult, I disagree; perjoration is a well understood linguistic topic, and it tends to happen in particular with words associated with disadvantaged groups. Idiot, moron, mentally retarded, ghetto, gypsy, savage, spinster, etc. > It should be acceptable to insult people in certain contexts We might occasionally want to say negative things about people, but actual insult should be saved for playful contexts. I have a hard time defending deliberately being a jerk to someone else. > it's completely inappropriate to treat this as though some corresponding identity group had been insulted If we are describing another person with a word, in general, we should respect their desire to be called or not be called by that word. And when a word has taken on undesirable connotations, it's reasonable to pick a sane default that most people are not going to want to be called that. > Aside from which, the treadmill isn't even remotely in sync universally. There are real discussion fora I've seen that take themselves completely seriously, where the word "stupid" is completely verboten and already has been for years - and not because of some general blanket policy against insults. Sure, change is uneven and not all proposed change happens. I am fine with calling something "stupid"-- it's when the "stupid" is an idea belonging to a particular person or is being used to call someone a name that it's not so great. Of course, there's always context; if I was around someone that I knew was particularly sensitive about their intelligence, I would perhaps try harder to stay away from words like "stupid" or "dumb". All of this, really, boils down to basic courtesy. If we're not told explicitly what is considered courteous, we need to make reasonable guesses based on the overall social context. |
None of those meet my definition of "slur", except possibly "gypsy".