Oh. So your intentions are completely altruistic. You're trying to broaden the horizons of gay people who feel attacked by these words, and thus to make them better people, because clearly they are the ones who need to work at that rather than the people who are taking terms that very much do apply to homosexual people and using them as insults.TheNamlessGuy said:Because anyone who is offended by something that obviously doesn't mean what they think it means is very close minded.JimB said:I was about to argue with your assessment of what those words mean, but screw that, it's not worth it. I'm just going to ask you why exactly you feel compelled to argue in defense of these words; what concepts they convey so exclusively that you need to defend their use against people who feel offended by them.
Which leads me back to the question, why are these words worth defending? Why are they so important that gay people should be expected to suffer through the transitional period of its meaning's evolution? What specific concepts do these words symbolize that their removal forms a crippling blow to vocabulary?TheNamlessGuy said:But they don't apply to homosexual people unless properly used anymore.
Thank you.TheNamlessGuy said:Also, happy 300!