I can't really agree with that, if basically nobody who is called a word doesn't care about it, it is a waste of effort. Maybe if the world lacked the millions of other far more pressing problems, but it seems like a complete waste of attention span to care about. Even if we change all these "offensive" terms that were once derogatory but now in regular neutral usage with minimal efforts and no resistance, what was actually accomplished other than some trivia question being eliminated?

In 50 years or so, people will just say the next round of terms is insensitive, especially as language continues to change and evolve, and repeat on forever.

This is just the etymological fallacy. Etymology is interesting in learning where words came from and what their sources originally meant, but it doesn't define what words currently mean.

You can "decimate" something without actually killing 1/10th of the people involved, and you can call some people "yo vo" without meaning they are cunning dogs.

I'm German and I wish you wouldn't take offense at this “yo yo” word on our behalf. It's not the N-word. There is no wound or trauma here. It's just a word with a history. In the East, we are called Niemcy, Německo, Nimska, etc.: all words that derive from an old attribution that means something like “mute” or “unable to speak”. Is that relevant today? No, it is not! I understand that young people need a cause to stand up and fight for, but language policing is really garbage. Be a socialist instead. Or do something against poverty, homelessness, wars, femicide, racism, ... Take your pick. But please understand that language policing does not change anyone's material living conditions, but is a purely mastorbatory matter. It is the most low-threshold, apolitical and inconsequential way of making yourself feel progressive and standing up for something.

To add to the irony you might call the languages with terms related to the Polish "Niemcy" by another etymologically rich word like German "Slawisch" or in English "Slavic".

So, I'm white and I live in Hong Kong. Gwei Lo (or some variation) is a slur for white people in China that I think basically means "foreign devil" or something to that effect. There's a popular brand of craft beer sold here that is literally named "gwei lo" and you know what? I don't care. Nobody cares. It really doesn't matter. I don't feel the need to campaign for the beer company to change their name.

Even your username is a ~Yiddish~ (edit: Hebrew, thank you, ars) word Jewish people use for non-Jewish people (sometimes derogatory, maybe). There's no end to this rabbit hole.

Judge people by their intentions behind what they say, not some etymological trivia.

First, I'm aware of the origin of the term; but "guy" was taken so I made do. Second, you don't care, but ... I'm afraid to break the news to you but there are billions of other people on the planet today, including me. I care.

Personally, I don't like the term from my language not only because of the possible reception but also it doesn't feel right to use it.

Why does it not feel right if it's long lost it's negative connotation? It's completely arbitrary at this point.

I can imagine that they are reminded of its original meaning, sapping any sort of desire to use the term. At least, that's how I feel about many of these "problematic" words.

How do you feel about the fact that "ciao!" means "slave!" (almost no one who uses the word "ciao" realizes the connection)

I do! And I know that it's a contraction of a phrase meaning literally "I am your slave", but more equivalent to "I remain your humble servant".

Also I'd only use it to say goodbye, only Italians use it to say hello, and you have to feel superior to someone!

Goy is not a Yiddish word, it's a Hebrew word that means "nation", and is most commonly used to mean "a different nation than me". Like any word it can be used in a derogatory way or a neutral way.

Ah, my mistake. I am but an uninformed goy.

FWIW "gweilo" literally means "ghost man".

Have you encountered anyone on the receiving end who is actually a) aware of this and b) bothered by it?

Because that would seem an important thing to ascertain.

Never did. As I said, I only recently became aware of the fact myself. I just say that it won't give me a good first impression of the people calling me that if I'm aware of the meaning. And by the way, your first contact with the term could come with our local brew of (supremac|national|fasc|rac)ists, who are quite fond of it and afterwards you will get off thinking everyone using the term has a beef with you (again I'm assuming, never discussed it with anyone concerned, you could say I'm imagining it).

I mean, it sounds like their intent isn't great!

I don't want to condemn your thoughts/feelings on this as I'm clearly not familiar with the specific situation, but I think what people are getting at is that imagining that other people may be offended by words and then policing based on that seems like moral posturing and trying to change people's habits for very little reason. If you take into account that (for the most part) the users of those words/idioms don't actually mean the 'bad' meaning, it all seems ... pointless. An action to make an in-group feel superior to an out-group, but that doesn't actually make any difference.

It sometimes reminds me of the (very middle class) campaign that took place in the UK in the last decade to stop people feeding bread to ducks, swans and other waterfowl. Well meaning, virtuous people took to putting up home-made signs about it at popular spots, and to intervening and even shaming those that continued the centuries old tradition. Pictures of swans with wing conditions were often used to try to shock.

While there is truth to the idea that there are better things you can feed ducks (oats, leafy greens), eventually the royal master of swans and a well-respected professor of ornithology got together and put out a statement begging people not to stop. Bread does no detectable harm to the birds, there is no known link to the medical conditions and it forms an important source of calories for many populations over winter. But the signs and the behaviour don't really stop, because it gives some people a way to look down on others, to signal that they know and those other idiots are just awful.

There are two schools of thought about euphemisms and forced politeness.

On the one hand, someone might appreciate that you are demonstrating care for how much something might hurt for them to think about in a certain way.

On the other hand, someone might take it as an insult that you don't think they can handle thinking about that thing in that way.

Assuming either one without knowing your audience is easily folly, but the "recovery" from each is different.

Fwiw, I'm white and I don't like being called Caucasian. As far as I can tell none of my ancestors did so much as visit the Caucasus, and the fine people of Georgia and nearby areas hardly benefit from being associated with me.

If you had to group into Caucasoid, Negroid or Mongoloid your likely choose the first one, but I'd say it's better not to work on the basis of 18th century "racial theory".

However, I don't usually make a fuss about the term, because I know a great many people use the term to mean "white" and aren't thinking about the relative merits of the three races of man. It's just a word to many people and it serves well enough in that context.