>>28649493I've really laid out pretty well written arguments. My logic is rather easy to follow too.
>>28649502My mistake, ambiguous writing. I'm trying to reply to you all and not make grammatical errors all at once.
The position is that we don't want an outcome where the baggage is forgotten.
>>28649495I follow your logic. By extension, one would think that if I'm against the word "fag", I should also be against other words that have had a negative connotation in the past.
However, your example, while close, is really a false equivalency. For these examples to be similar, the population of people that the words implicated would still currently need to be oppressed; also, the words would also still need to be used in their original derogatory manner.
One could argue that Jews are still persecuted, but that's an argument for another day that I don't want to get into right now.
But ya, false equivalency.
