It _may_ be offensive to some, and not to others. "Niggardly" may be offensive to some, and not to others.
We should always be respectful of what might offend folks. But we should also strive to make sure the other folks aren't intellectually handicapped and unable to discern a slander from just a word. If the term has no negative connotation until 40-ish years ago, and all of the negative connotation was fabricated out of thin air? That's at least as notable as the fact that it might offend some. Probably more so.
Our mutual desire to live in a friendly society is always at odds with our mutual desire to know what the hell we're talking about. Each of us has an obligation to, in as kind a manner as possible, educate the other about what they might find truly offensive or not if they were better educated. Otherwise civil discourse is just a contest to see who can be offended the most.
PC is being a weasel and not having the discussion. PC is not trying to kindly point out that there may be another side to things. PC's definition has not changed.
On the other hand, no one has the right not to be offended.
I'm not sure where the assumption that "I'm not allowed to be offended" has somehow become implicit in society, but it's a false assumption. You have no such right.
> On the other hand, no one has the right not to be offended.
It has nothing to do with legal rights. We have the right to say anything we want to each other and to our mothers (short of a death threat), but that doesn't mean we should.
Throughout the history of humanity, most would say you have a social 'right' (not a legal one) to be treated with respect. That includes not being insulted.
While some people may think they have a right not to be offended, it is not necessary for it to be a right in order for us to avoid using words like this, which have been historically used to denigrate a class of people while simultaneously depriving them of life and property. We of the ruling class would do well to keep in mind the historical narratives that helped us solidify our power, and do our best to avoid them in the present.
Edit: The downvotes are very instructive. HN: your privilege is showing.
These are merely more disingenuous arguments. Not everything is worth discussing -- especially when all the other person offers is political posturing poorly disguised as rationality. At least if you want to posture, be open about it.
We should always be respectful of what might offend folks. But we should also strive to make sure the other folks aren't intellectually handicapped and unable to discern a slander from just a word. If the term has no negative connotation until 40-ish years ago, and all of the negative connotation was fabricated out of thin air? That's at least as notable as the fact that it might offend some. Probably more so.
Our mutual desire to live in a friendly society is always at odds with our mutual desire to know what the hell we're talking about. Each of us has an obligation to, in as kind a manner as possible, educate the other about what they might find truly offensive or not if they were better educated. Otherwise civil discourse is just a contest to see who can be offended the most.
PC is being a weasel and not having the discussion. PC is not trying to kindly point out that there may be another side to things. PC's definition has not changed.