It's not possible for it to be short, and it will have to change. The level of offensiveness of a slur changes over time, some worsen, some lessen, entirely on how the word is used in the vernacular. Thus words would have to be lessened or increased.
The list should be thousands of words long, considering that there are many ingenious slurs that you've never hear that are fairly extreme. There's also going to be new ones all the time. It would become a strange and arbitrary process to add them.
Do you think that all of those would be actionable? In most people’s minds, nigger and faggot are more extreme than something like moon cricket or polesmoker. It’d be strange if enforcement of obscure slurs was more consistent than the common, original-strength slurs people actually care about.
Regarding the existence of new slurs, where do euphemisms fit in? Stuff like joggers, boat people, New Germans, basketball Americans, and so on. It’s not a slur just because it refers to someone by a “protected” characteristic, nor is it necessarily spoken in hate. And even if it were, we’re allowed to say bad things about minority groups.
In most people's minds. However, internet culture very clearly allows faggot and fag, due to how it is kind of normalized and it's offensiveness revoked like "new fag". Nigger is fairly extreme even in internet culture, so I don't have an answer on that yet.
Obscure slurs are actually more enforceable because they are so archaic, the only purpose for using them would be towards offense.
Euphemisms have to be taken on a case by case basis. Joggers, Boat People, New Germans, Basketball Americans; are all cases of very low-offense terms, or in some cases, non-offense like "boat people".
In other words, it's completely arbitrary and based entirely on your own personal biases. Like how you categorically denounce 'zog' when that's more obscure than 'porch monkey'.
It's not possible for it to be short, and it will have to change. The level of offensiveness of a slur changes over time, some worsen, some lessen, entirely on how the word is used in the vernacular. Thus words would have to be lessened or increased.
The list should be thousands of words long, considering that there are many ingenious slurs that you've never hear that are fairly extreme. There's also going to be new ones all the time. It would become a strange and arbitrary process to add them.
Do you think that all of those would be actionable? In most people’s minds, nigger and faggot are more extreme than something like moon cricket or polesmoker. It’d be strange if enforcement of obscure slurs was more consistent than the common, original-strength slurs people actually care about.
Regarding the existence of new slurs, where do euphemisms fit in? Stuff like joggers, boat people, New Germans, basketball Americans, and so on. It’s not a slur just because it refers to someone by a “protected” characteristic, nor is it necessarily spoken in hate. And even if it were, we’re allowed to say bad things about minority groups.
In most people's minds. However, internet culture very clearly allows faggot and fag, due to how it is kind of normalized and it's offensiveness revoked like "new fag". Nigger is fairly extreme even in internet culture, so I don't have an answer on that yet.
Obscure slurs are actually more enforceable because they are so archaic, the only purpose for using them would be towards offense.
Euphemisms have to be taken on a case by case basis. Joggers, Boat People, New Germans, Basketball Americans; are all cases of very low-offense terms, or in some cases, non-offense like "boat people".
In other words, it's completely arbitrary and based entirely on your own personal biases. Like how you categorically denounce 'zog' when that's more obscure than 'porch monkey'.
Your boat people privilege is showing, hon