It certainly is more than simply convenience – it's a question of ethics. I consider the offended person's hurt to be more important than the offender's ego, which is why I believe it's better to listen and understand where they're coming from than double down on the initial "transgression".

Regarding your rationale for being opposed to the "intent is not magic" quote, can you tell me how you'd honestly react if you did call someone a ♥♥♥♥♥♥ or ♥♥♥♥ (not that you actually would, but hypothetically), and that person turned around and told you they were extremely upset by it? Would you repeat what you've just told me ("Hey, it's not *always* wrong to call someone a ♥♥♥♥♥♥!"), or would you listen to what they're saying and why they felt hurt by it? Certainly the latter, right? Not everyone has the privilege of living in an ivory tower where this scenario is purely philosophical and nothing more – the wrong words can cause real damage.

In general, I agree. However, the right to free speech doesn't include hateful speech, nor does it oblige someone to behave in a hurtful manner just because they can get away with it. Sure, one doesn't have an "obligation" to apologize if they offend a minority as a result of their insensitivity or bigotry - but if they don't, it does make them, well, a bit of an arsehole.

Even worse things happen when we insist they shouldn't be.

I mean, heaven forbid people think more about the consequences of their words and actions, and the possibility that perhaps they should be more considerate.

Why not? The people in that group are the ones who have had the most experience being subjected to the receiving end of bigotry - so why can't they be trusted to know what's hurtful when they experience it? We sure as hell can't trust bigoted people to define bigotry - I mean, ask a member of Stormfront about their views on immigration and I'm certain you'll find they'll tell you they're not bigoted whatsoever, but it doesn't make them right!

From a perspective of pure convenience, you're right. Apologizing and walking away is always more convenient than standing your ground.

However, when you get into obligation as a reason for insisting that the offender apologizes (your statements suggest a deeper perspective than just "convenience"), then you can't hold the idea that using the word "♥♥♥♥♥♥" to refer to a black person is not always wrong unless there's some sort of caveat or double standard or something. Arguably, in practice, using vulgarity where it applies is an exercise in socializing, for example. So it can't always be wrong to refer to a black person as "♥♥♥♥♥♥" or a woman as "♥♥♥♥♥" or whatever. Which means that the person who is confronted with an offended person isn't in the wrong because of the word itself, but technically because of the presence of the offended person. If we're philosophizing about this, we need to draw some sort of line between "justified offence taken" and, well, other kinds of offence taken.

The negative history of the word is strongly associated with acts of actual oppression, in a practical sense rather than being a bad thing in and of itself. Harrassment, fewer opportunities, etc. I think that effort should be put into decreasing that sort of thing, rather than attacking words rather than actions.

As I said in the thread, I believe that free speech ultimately benefits society.

The most important thing to take away from this is that we should watch our rhetoric. Bad things happen when you insist that an oppressed group should be protected from bigotry, and when you define bigotry solely from the POV of said group. Bad things happen when good intentions are seen as equal to bad ones. Especially if you insist on turning this into law.

Maybe it'd be helpful if you focus on the tl;dr version instead:

It's like if someone calls a black man a "♥♥♥♥♥♥" - the person saying that word might not mean it as an insult, but it doesn't change the fact that it's an extremely hurtful word with an extensive history of being used to put down and denigrate black people. In such a situation, it would be best if the person who used the word apologized after being confronted, instead of digging in their heels with "I didn't mean to cause offence! Why are you getting so angry at me? You're overreacting! Don't be so meeeeeeean!" To be honest, I'm sick of seeing the right to be bigoted towards an oppressed group be constantly lauded as a greater right than that of an oppressed group to be protected from bigotry.

(As for the reply in the thread that you're referring to, well, ghost-believers aren't really a minority group and there isn't really a background of entrenched prejudice and discrimination against them, so I don't really think that's a good example either. Also, a belief isn't an identity. I might question a ghost-believer, sure - but questioning a belief is hardly the same as making a gendered/racial slur. It's like how in SD we always emphasize that attacking the argument is fair game, but not the person. You can change a belief - race and gender, however, are a part of who you are).

Except the rhetoric of that post doesn't single out people who act in such a way to disadvantage others (it makes little sense to be talking about alienating the people who you're supposed to be campaigning against). It addresses everyone who has ever offended a member of a minority and effectively destroys the concept of "overreacting". You might not have meant that, but the post you quoted clearly conveyed that message (to the point where it was actually addressed in a reply in that thread).

I think it's neither practical nor beneficial to society to tell all such people that responsibility lay on them for having offended the other person.

Just a word of warning though, I'm heading off tomorrow morning and won't be back until Friday evening (not sure how much Internet access I'll have while I'm away), so it might be a bit of time before I respond.

Thank you!

G'day mate frum acraws the deetch.

Happy Birthday

that was a reference which I did not get...

wouldn't it be ironic

if you got eaten

by a lion?

rawr.

rawr.

Haha, fair enough! It is a rather...strange looking thing.

I noticed that one.

You can imagine why I didn't want to post it and claim "HEY LOOK I FOUND A BABY PIC OF YOU".

Oh. xD

In that case:

"lion bell"

I was originally gonna see if there were any bells in the shape of a lion, and then post them here and claim I found your baby photo or something