Perhaps Bo is confusing intent with motive?
He’s saying that even though the sensitive person has made their propensity to be offended known, they (the sensitive person) may very well never enter into Bo’s consciousness while Bo was talking. It’s not like Bo’s world revolves around the sensitive person.
Or maybe “munchkin” is more closely aligned ecclisiastically and linguistically to “gay”. Some small nuances and context can make “munchkin” of a different tact and perhaps offensive. Although all around, it seems like either use is the most inoffensive of offenses.
http://blog.okcupid.com/ has a chart about what straight people like the most compared to gay people. And vice versa.
Straight: band of brothers poker cars my boat saving private ryan hunting fishing my buddies golf sports the right woman ping pong a few beers
Gay:
the devil wears prada britney spears mean girls kelly clarkson the color purple project runway
Even if Bo is standing right in front of the person who’s asked them not to use that word? Bo doesn’t think at all about the person he’s talking to? Wow, I bet Bo is really popular.
BTW, you don’t have to be a ‘sensitive person’ to want people to stop using the word.
Where did Bo say this?
Sure, whatever you say.
I think you need to read the posts again. We are talking about people that are talking to me, not when they’re talking to other people:
I would prefer that they stopped using the word that way altogether, because I don’t think it’s a good idea to associate gayness with crapness - but they wouldn’t be ‘intentionally causing offence’ if they used the word around people who don’t mind.
In fact, I am quite popular. I’m also somewhat confused as to how it became me speaking at all.
All I’m saying, and Ellis Dee had it pretty much right, is that you are ignoring the fact that there are more than two options, both of which put you at the center of the universe.
Option #1) scifisam will be offended, so people don’t use a certain word or phrase around him, in order to not offend.
Option #2) scifisam will be offended, so people do use a certain word phrase around him, in order to offend.
But there is at least one other option:
Option #3) scifisam’s wishes do not matter at all to whoever is talking, so they pay no attention to scifisam’s wishes, without malice or favor.
When it rains, it isn’t the universe pissing on you. It’s just raining.
When the sun is shining, it’s not a beautiful gift for you. It’s just sunny.
Likewise, no one on this planet is obligated to consider your wishes before they act. Sometimes you just don’t matter at all, even after you spend time and energy trying to make people give a shit about what you want. It isn’t personal, because they don’t ever think at all about you.
Sorry - I was tired and didn’t see that it was your name being used. I’ve no idea why Ellis Dee picked you to use as an example. Maybe it was coincidence.
Option 3 is the same as option 1. If someone intentionally says something that they know will cause offence, then they are intentionally causing offence. Sheesh. Only here could such a tautology be called into question.
It would be really weird for my friends to ‘never think about me at all.’
Do you generally just say random things without considering who you’re talking to? I bet you don’t. I mean, you wouldn’t suddenly start posting about, say, baseball on this thread, would you, for no reason? We’re talking about conversations, not the ramblings of sad individuals who’ve lost the ability to interact with people.
We’re also talking about asking people to please avoid using one word in one way. Oh, what an onerous burden for anyone to shoulder!
I think Miller’s right - you and Ellis are confusing intent with motive.
Not paying attention to someone’s wishes is a slight however unintentional you may think it is.
I hate making this argument, since I’ve also made the opposite, but I feel I must: It may not be that they are intending to hurt you, because it may not be all about you. They may believe they have a good reason for using the term that is more important than your opinion on the matter.
But they still know that they’ll be causing offence. It’s not their main motivation, but an intentional act simply is intentional.
I’m a bit fed up of this, TBH. With so much homophobia around, you wouldn’t think it’d be a big deal to ask people to refrain from using a word because it increases homophobia (even when that’s not the speaker’s intention). Yet I have to explain it over and over again, and, even on here, pretty much no-one backs me up.
I despair. If people can’t avoid one word (and we’re not talking about ‘the’ or some such word), then they’re not going to bother with anything that requires actual effort.
No, it isn’t. You may perceive it that way, but that doesn’t mean that they do. Again: you are not the center of the universe.
TBh, it kinda sounds more like you think you’re the centre of the universe, if your right to use whatever offensive words is more important than causing offence. What you’re saying is that your feelings are more important. And you accuse me of arrogance? 
Well, it’s good thing that never once have I used “gay” as a synonymn for “crap”, and I think most people who use it have never assosciated it with “crap” in their internal lexikon and associatives. If some thing is crap, you just use “crap”, gay things are never “crap”, they have an elusive and effemeral quality that specifically says gay… now can “crap” be “gay”? Why yes, there certainly is that possibility. But crappieness and gayness are not the same.
Really? You can’t piece that puzzle together? The two posts immediately before my first post to this thread were discussing Bo’s position. I guess you could say it was coincidence in the sense that directly addressing the current topic of conversation is a coincidence.
No, I’m not saying that. I never accused you of anything, let alone arrogance. I accused your statement of being ego-centric. And again, this isn’t about me saying anything. It’s a hypothetical person speaking to another hypothetical person who doesn’t want to hear a certain word or phrase. I use “you” because you, scifisam, are the person who is arguing so vociferously that the word is personally offensive in this thread. If you’d rather, we can talk about how Harold Stinkfarter doesn’t want people to use the word “gay” to mean “lame”.
I’m not asserting any “right” to say anything. I’m rejecting the ego-centric notion that your wishes, anyone’s wishes, must be followed, and that a failure to do so must be because of any kind of disfavor towards you. You may simply not factor into the equation at all, to someone else. A failure to prioritize you does not mean a diss, as no one is under any obligation that I know of to consider you or your wishes.
You can make the argument that in a civilized society they should consider your wishes, but even that argument acknowledges that they don’t have to.
I never said I was. The egocentric person in this example is the person who can’t be bothered to maintain civility.
Edit: And you’re still wrong.
This IS a diss. It’s not an active diss like namecalling or violence but it is still a diss because it is saying, “your opinion or feelings are so unimportant to me that I will ignore them”. You seriously don’t understand how this can be offensive?
I’m offended by this debate. Any further debating is a clear insult to me.