This line is probably smaller than it may appear. The reason much of this language policing started is because of the dominant group using language to reinforce the inferiority of a less powerful group.

It’s always easier for the dominant group to say “it’s just words — no one cares” since the words are never at their expense.

Which dominant group isn't subject to slurs?

Everyone is subject to slurs. That’s not what I’m referencing.

I’m talking about the use of language where you use the less-dominant group as a negative reference point. For example “retarded”. Or “fag”. You apply those terms to people who are neither as a way of disparaging them.

I’m gay. Whether someone calls me fag or gay or LGBTQI+ (this one I hate more that “fag”, BTW) is orthogonal to:

a) how they treat me

b) whether they would actually stick their neck out for me when it really matters (e.g. marriage equality).

I will almost universally guarantee that the same person who insists on non-offensive language for me would NOT fight for marriage equality if it means they have to give up something or risk something. True ally.

I think you missed my point. It isn’t about calling you a fag (which they may). It’s about calling people they think are less than in general - fags.

On your other point, you think that people who call you fag or other offensive language will fight for marriage equality? As a black person I’ve found that people who call me coon typically haven’t fought for me — even when they have something to gain (drain pool).

You’re right that someone who calls me X or you Y won’t fight for us. What I tried to communicate is that folks who spend a lot of time fighting for using specific verbiage to refer to me so as to not offend, are not really helping me. In fact, as Dave Chapelle has pointed out, when it really comes down to it, even people who obsess about using language that they think would offend me don’t stick their necks out when it really matters; they might correct speech or go to a march (gay pride for instance), but ask them to sacrifice something and it is crickets.

Fair enough. I generally agree.

> It’s about calling people they think are less than in general

OT, but does anyone know where this specific usage of "less than" came from? I'd never seen it until about five years ago and now it's everywhere. The word "inferior" would have been used before. What's the origin of this?

>The reason much of this language policing started is because of the dominant group using language to reinforce the inferiority of a less powerful group.

I think it's the inverse: the reason this language policing started was because the dominant group had reduced its hold... That why it started when it started and not when things were much worse...