I don't think we disagree that much.
I'm an anthropologist (the field that includes linguistics, symbolic and otherwise, and
which championed cultural relativity). I'm definitely aware that meaning has power.
Meaning is based on context of both or all people involved. So, I'm free to change
what I say to fit who is hearing it.
The message board example illustrates that. In that example, you're not pointing out the
power of words, you're pointing out the power of ambiguous meaning. Of course, some
people really are simply opposed to the word itself, meaning or no.
If the history of language has shown us anything, it's that words and meaning don't have to be
too closely aligned (ex. "faggot" as a bundle of sticks, or obscenities becoming acceptable
words and vice versa).
Communication is a lot more nuanced than most people would make it out to seem (so I guess
you are right, they aren't "just words"
. The meaning of words is neither stable across time, or
even currently agreed upon. Even when meaning is generally agreed upon, people are still free
to appropriate language as they see fit....their only bounds are the limits of understanding
between sender and receiver. Hence, I would not try to use the language I use with
my best friend (playfully abusive) with someone like my colleagues or, I guess, you.
I suppose it's not that they are "too serious" or I am "too casual." We simply use different
sets of language and meaning. People can always adjust though, to the context.
I still think that focusing on implicit insults is low hanging fruit when you compare it to
discrimination/persecution/sexism which allowed to continue because it is deemed
socially acceptable...things that seem to always fly under the radar.
Basically, just because you use slurs doesn't make you a bigot, and not all bigots use slurs.
The words are, at most, a symptom. So why focus on words when you can focus on bigots?
That's my perspective anyway.
Edit history
= new reply since forum marked as read