What?

[{quoted}](name=The Djinn,realm=NA,application-id=6heBIhQc,discussion-id=V8Ar1ctc,comment-id=000300030000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-10-12T01:59:13.228+0000)

I'm not sure there's much to say at this point, frankly, because there are some points we simply disagree on, and that's fine.

I suppose. Thanks for actually responding below anyway.

I would argue that using words that have been given that malice, prejudice, and discrimination by using them as insults AS insults means that your language inherits that malice, prejudice, and discrimination that turned those words into insults in the first place.

For this to make sense to me I need to know how this inheriting works. If you take a sender, message, receiver model of the communication, where do you put in this inherting mechanic that would taint the message with hate if the sender doesn't add it? Because to me the only sensible way to introduce this inheriting is at the receiver's end, and its result is a miscommunication where the meaning the message was supposed to carry is corrupted on the receiving end. And from this perspective the problem is not the message, but that the receiver assigned this inhereted meaning to it.

We don't only moderate on specific words. That theoretical post would absolutely be removed.

So you do care about people's intent, just not when it's harmless? I mean I'm glad the system isn't as dumb as I described (frankly, I would have been surprised if it was), but it doesn't seem super consistent.

Inherently, no. I believe a word can accrue meanings through historical usage. You may disagree. C'est la vie.

I mean I can understand that in some circumstances the etimology of a word would matter, but why should it be taken into account every time, why should only specific histories be taken into account rather than all of it and how fair do you think that your belief that this can happen results in distorting the meaning of people's words for no good reason? How did you aquire this belief and what's the reason you hold it as true? Because to me it looks like this:

Person 1 says something to person 2 and means A. Person 2 interprets this as A. This is what I would call successful communication. Then you come along and say, no, actually what he had to mean was B, because he used a specific word or phrase. This is what I would call fixing what ain't broken.

Then, in my opinion, he should use those words, rather than using words that are associated with discriminatory and insulting language.

But that association happens on the reader side, and that's the extent of it, association. This is where higher mental functions like reason, memory and language processing step in and identify that association to be a mistake. Let's say I had the power to turn rain off willingly. I associate rain with gloom, the sensation of cold water droplets bombarding my skin and sadness, those are the places my subconscious immediately takes my mind when seeing rain or hearing about it. But I realize that it is an essential part of nature, required for crops to grow and rivers to flow not to mention that there are plenty of people who like it and would not turn it off just because I have a gut dislike of it.

You may disagree with those statements above, and that's fine. I'm not really interested in arguing the point, because it seems like we're simply coming from different perspectives here, and sometimes there is simply a fundamental disagreement in how people view a situation.

This is a situation where agreeing to disagree makes no sense in my opinion. As a moderator this question is integral to how you do your role and if I were you I would take any legitimate criticism seriously and try to get the correctness of my strongly held beliefs across to the other party if for no other reason than to see that those beliefs can indeed stand up to the challenge of the criticism and thereby reaffirm them.

I'm in this willing to change my mind if you show to me that I'm wrong, but so far I've gotten "the history of the word should take precedence over the meaning unambigously attributed to it by the speaker" and "the words can make people associate to their actually offensive meanings". I'm sure that an intelligent person such as yourself wouldn't base their beliefs that are relevant to a supervising role they do in life on sentiments of this quality, there must be a strong argument on your side that I would like to hear.