I can see where you're coming from, in that "dilettante" may be less outlandish than calling someone a "fag." It's a more refined description, but in the end both are still most likely unfounded claims.

In most cases you are probably calling the person a "dilettante" or "self-important" without really knowing the person. And chances are such labels will be emotionally, rather than rationally motivated. So it's true that in some cases the claim can be legitimate, but given our setting in an almost anonymous internet discussion place, it's unlikely that those claims are ever founded on reason. I think that was Paul's point: that calling someone a "fag" vs "self-important dilettante" are similar in their usually unfounded bases. You're correct in that there is a fundamental difference because calling someone a "fag" is not only unfounded, it's also derogatory as well as irrelevant to any rational argument (irrelevant, unless it is an argument about their sexuality).