Are some words inherently offensive or is context important?

I believe that words have no power in themselves, yet how a person utilizes the words create the offensive nature.

I see words as just the colors with which we use to paint an image. If I intend or prefer my image to be dark, then the words I would choose would be such; opposite, of course, with a bright or enlightening image.

In addition, I think the words we all use, regardless sometimes of how, where or why we use them, are misconstrued based upon who is hearing or reading them. If someone wants to believe another is being derogatory toward them, then they will take a phrase like "you are a water drinker" in a poor way. I, as well as others here, can be sarcastic and include a little bite in our comments, never truly intending them to be taken the "wrong" way...but at times they are.


-k

Gwendoline said:

Just curious. What "word" would you use for a man who is "... so overblown on their views that they begin to swing it from an honest attempt to bring men to an equal playing field but instead to place men above women and to actively work to punish and oppress women for the sake of raising up men..."

So how does it work when said that way? And is there a word equivelent to "feminazi" for men, and what is it? Neanderthal? Sounds kinda soft... maybe something a bit harsher, maybe...

Click to expand...

Well, a few issues with giving a true answer here.

First, unlike feminism, there's no real "movement" or political grouping or terminology for the "advancement of man". There's no manimist or anything of the sort. As such, there's no easy way to take the generic groups (in this case feminists) general term and then merge it with a well recognized group term for the type of attitude you're saying the extreme section of them represent (nazi's) and then to merge those.

So, with female's who are great advocates of female rights and rank in the world (feminists) who believe they must punish, degrade, and destroy an enemy that they feel is wrong in order to prop up and bring to prominence the more correct sex/person (nazi-esque mentality) easily creates the notion of a "feminazi" that if one is to look at it objectively should provide a reasonable image of the TYPE of extreme feminist you're talking about. By that very nature, if you use it to describe EVERY feminist then you're being overly hyperbolic and rather insulting as you're attributing extremism to everyone in a movement.

This is difficult, as I said, to give a correlation for a man showing the same thing because they do not have an identifiable political or social group label.

Frankly, as a male, being compared to a barely over animal IQ horribly unevolved humanoid that is essentially an entirely different species could be seen as rather offensive. YOU may not find it that offensive and find it "soft", but could it not be for the same reason you seem to be implying that males find the use of "feminist" as an insulting term as "soft"?

So, no, I can't give you a good analog because the situations are not directly relatable. I do think if there was some organized political or social movement with a distinct label for the "advancement of men's rights" and some of them acted in an extremely oppressive way that the use of "[whatever]nazi" would make me react much the same way as the one we're talking about, thinking its a decent enough way to give imagery to what you're thought is but overall rather juvenile and not useful for the conversation.

Zyphlin said:

So, no, I can't give you a good analog because the situations are not directly relatable. I do think if there was some organized political or social movement with a distinct label for the "advancement of men's rights" and some of them acted in an extremely oppressive way that the use of "[whatever]nazi" would make me react much the same way as the one we're talking about, thinking its a decent enough way to give imagery to what you're thought is but overall rather juvenile and not useful for the conversation.

Click to expand...

I see a couple problems with this. There are certainly men who view women as little more than property and such, and the strongest term we have for those is "misogynist", which is a term with almost no emotional impact. A woman who views men with contempt is a "feminazi", which is a word with considerable emotional impact, and is used far more often than "misogynist". In a very similar way, "bitch" is female directed, and has a strong impact, but the male version, "bastard" has almost no impact.

The second problem is that the word "feminazi" is used more to marginalize women of strength than it is to describe women with ultra extreme man hating positions, at least in my experience. Thankfully, it seems the use of the term is going down, but at one time, any time "women's issues" where brought up, it was a safe bet the word "feminazi" would be broken out soon.

Now, I don't find the word "feminazi" to be offensive. I do not find words to be offensive at all. I am more worried about ideas than words.

Redress said:

I see a couple problems with this. There are certainly men who view women as little more than property and such, and the strongest term we have for those is "misogynist", which is a term with almost no emotional impact.

Click to expand...

I'd question that. I imagine men who don't present misogynistic tendancies that are lambasted as that would find it greatly offensive. I imagine men who DO present such tendancies would be the type to typically take insults and scoff at them, choosing to instead shield themselves through insulting back rather than letting themselves be outwardly offended. Again, this is a case of a word not being universally insulting but it having different insulting meanings to different people.

A woman who views men with contempt is a "feminazi", which is a word with considerable emotional impact, and is used far more often than "misogynist".

Click to expand...

Again, I think this is again an instance where it is the context and society that has caused the possible backlash, not the "word". Once again, the term is likely used "more often" because in general you do not have an organized political movement to push "men's rights" where as there IS for women. I have no doubt, knowing our society in which EVERY political grouping generally has some kind of insulting term affixed to it, that there would be something for an equivilent male organization.

I also think this comes down in general to the different attitudes that at least on a personal level I've observed between extremely over the top males and females in regards to their sex. Where as Males, from what I've observed, seem more likely to go on the attack and shrug off an insult as "meaningless" I've noticed women more likely to take it and wear it as a badge and as something to use as a sort of standard bearer to attack back.

To give an analogy, let us say that insulting words are like a weapon...say a knife. The male tendancy, from what I've observed, would be to rip the knife out, ignore it, and run forward to kill the enemy with their own weapon. The female tendancy would be to grab it, use it to fuel their anger further, and use it as the weapon to attack them back with. (A bit crude of an analogy but I hope you get where I'm going).

Essentially, that the way in which the extreme's on both sides of the sexes react to the words is less about how "offensive" the words are but more simply on the ways in which they react to it, which in turns creates the way in which the words are viewed to a certain extent.

In a very similar way, "bitch" is female directed, and has a strong impact, but the male version, "bastard" has almost no impact.

Click to expand...

Again, I hear "bitch" and "bastard" generally said in EXTREMELY similar context with extremely similar venom. The only real difference I see is the way in which it envokes a reaction *typically*. Your assertion seems to be that that means one word is naturally more "offensive" than the other it seems, where as I think it has more to do with the general way in which the sexes tend to act and respond to certain things on a stereotypical general level.

The second problem is that the word "feminazi" is used more to marginalize women of strength than it is to describe women with ultra extreme man hating positions, at least in my experience.Thankfully, it seems the use of the term is going down, but at one time, any time "women's issues" where brought up, it was a safe bet the word "feminazi" would be broken out soon.

Click to expand...

Which was my point in the post. "Feminazi" as a term is not something I have an issue with. While I think it is not extremely useful in conversation because it does have a tendancy to inflame, within the context of its creation and general meaning I do not think it is an offensive thing. When it is extended as an overall generalization to any and every women that feels the need for womens rights THEN I can understand offense to it. But this still leads back to my original statement...that in general I do not view words as being able to be "universally" offensive but requiring context to be offensive, which said context at times can only apply to a singular person.

Now, I don't find the word "feminazi" to be offensive. I do not find words to be offensive at all. I am more worried about ideas than words.

Click to expand...

I agree, and in regards to something like "Feminazi" I do not believe that the "idea" behind it in a general sense is "offensive" but I do believe it can be used, and often is used, in an offensive way when over generalized.

Zyphlin said:

Again, I hear "bitch" and "bastard" generally said in EXTREMELY similar context with extremely similar venom. The only real difference I see is the way in which it envokes a reaction *typically*. Your assertion seems to be that that means one word is naturally more "offensive" than the other it seems, where as I think it has more to do with the general way in which the sexes tend to act and respond to certain things on a stereotypical general level.

Click to expand...

Thank you for a well thought out reply. Needless to say, I disagree with it in most ways, but the disagreement is with perception I think. We perceive the usage and reaction to these words differently, and I don't think that is reconcilable.

To give an example of what I mean, from what I quoted above: "She is such a bitch" has a strongly different meaning from "he is such a bastard". I don't think one is "worse" than the other, just that one is stronger than the other, and find it interesting that our culture has stronger negative terms for women than men.

I'm very niggardly with my use of words if I feel the audience viewing/hearing my words may perhaps have a fundemental failure of understanding of the meaning of said word.

It's not the word that is the problem, rather the IQ of the people hearing/seeing it that matters. Words are only words until some rere hears it and gets offended. Often for the wrong reasons.

aaronssongs said:

From what I've seen, is a lot of jockeying for position. Why does the onus fall upon the person offended and not the person offending? I fail to understand that. I can't tell you what's offensive to you. I rely on you to tell me what you find offensive, and for me to consider your feelings in the matter, human being to human being, and avoid offending you...that is if I care. If I have empathy, or sympathy. Some people don't possess it, and go through life treading on the feelings and beliefs of others, thinking that their feelings and beliefs trump, somehow. I didn't grow up that way. My mother instilled care and concern for other human beings in me. I summarily reject arrogance. And it's arrogant to suggest that folks should be offended by words which historically have the sole purpose of offense, and was commonplace, during slavery. Unless things haven't changed that much.

Click to expand...

I will not apologize because the offense you took to my use of the word was illogical. Especially given your post in this thread in which you did exactly the same thing. I did not use the word to spice up a comment, insult anyone, or emphasize a stereotype. I used the word to describe an incident in which another used it offensively. Are authors who cite the history of the word in their study of race relations also racists? Is Kat Williams a racist against blacks when he uses word over 100 times in an hour and a half?

What I think you have done here is tried to come in and force your hyper sensitive racial issue on me and the rest of this forum. You deliberately mischaracterized me so that you could lend credence to your self perceived position of intellectual and social superiority. When you accused me of being a racist, it was very offensive because YOU deliberately made a disparaging remark about ME. The very fact that you believe that any use of the word "nigger" makes someone a racist or bigot is absolute bunk. It's completely illogical.

What you either do not realize or refuse to acknowledge is that you were the one who trespassed against me in this incident. All you had to say is "Lerxst, I find the use of that term very offensive, would you please consider not using it?" And I might have simply said "you know, I'm sorry...I didn't mean to offend I was just describing the incident" and this thing would have all gone away. But you didn't do that. You took it way past civil and you extrapolated to the point of calling me a bigot and a racist. Do you even understand what actually constitutes racism and bigotry?

You've taken a single word I used completely out of context and impugned my character here. I have been a stalwart defender of racial, religious, and sexual orientation tolerance on this forum since I arrived here. I would appreciate it if you reserved such strong judgment until you've actually gotten to know me.

Thank you.

And the answer to the poll question is a resounding "no." People can drop the f-bomb around me all day long and I don't care. Drop it front of my kids and we have a problem. I don't ever require an apology, I just ask that the person control their cursing around my children because I don't want them picking up on it. I'm not offended by the cursing because I found it offensive, I'm just asking for restraint due to small ears. Now if he said "**** you man!" as in insult then I would be offended because of the intent. Words are offensive when they are used in an offensive manner. People can take offense to words for any number of reason (social factors, upbringing, religious views, etc) but that does not mean that the speaker intended any offense.

And to the Reverend Hellhound, thank you sir.

Redress said:

Thank you for a well thought out reply. Needless to say, I disagree with it in most ways, but the disagreement is with perception I think. We perceive the usage and reaction to these words differently, and I don't think that is reconcilable.

To give an example of what I mean, from what I quoted above: "She is such a bitch" has a strongly different meaning from "he is such a bastard". I don't think one is "worse" than the other, just that one is stronger than the other, and find it interesting that our culture has stronger negative terms for women than men.

Click to expand...

And yeah, a lot of it comes down to the individual, which is indeed exactly my point. For example, with those two phrases you just said you seem to imply you find that one is stronger or "worse" than the other where as I see them as essentially a black and white mirror image of each other that invokes much the same emotions and thoughts, though perhaps slightly tailored to stereotypical gender norms (jerky, sarcastic, crude, harsh to catty, snide, nasty)

dclxvinoise said:

Dude, I wasn't just talking about the 'N' word. You listed a whole crap load of offensive terms.

Click to expand...

I reprinted the list from Wikipedia, so as to make clear what kind of words were considered pejoratives.

dclxvinoise said:

I don't think guys like that are really that complex. I'm sure they wish they were. I think you are giving them far too much credit. :lol: To me they just have extremely fragile egos and want to lash out at others because of it.



I agree. There should be a good name for guys like that.

Click to expand...

You got that right, or could say that again. Some men are just full of themselves, and cannot be told anything, lest they realize that the control they profess to have is but mere illusion.

Lerxst said:

I will not apologize because the offense you took to my use of the word was illogical. Especially given your post in this thread in which you did exactly the same thing. I did not use the word to spice up a comment, insult anyone, or emphasize a stereotype. I used the word to describe an incident in which another used it offensively. Are authors who cite the history of the word in their study of race relations also racists? Is Kat Williams a racist against blacks when he uses word over 100 times in an hour and a half?

What I think you have done here is tried to come in and force your hyper sensitive racial issue on me and the rest of this forum. You deliberately mischaracterized me so that you could lend credence to your self perceived position of intellectual and social superiority. When you accused me of being a racist, it was very offensive because YOU deliberately made a disparaging remark about ME. The very fact that you believe that any use of the word "nigger" makes someone a racist or bigot is absolute bunk. It's completely illogical.

What you either do not realize or refuse to acknowledge is that you were the one who trespassed against me in this incident. All you had to say is "Lerxst, I find the use of that term very offensive, would you please consider not using it?" And I might have simply said "you know, I'm sorry...I didn't mean to offend I was just describing the incident" and this thing would have all gone away. But you didn't do that. You took it way past civil and you extrapolated to the point of calling me a bigot and a racist. Do you even understand what actually constitutes racism and bigotry?

You've taken a single word I used completely out of context and impugned my character here. I have been a stalwart defender of racial, religious, and sexual orientation tolerance on this forum since I arrived here. I would appreciate it if you reserved such strong judgment until you've actually gotten to know me.

Thank you.

And the answer to the poll question is a resounding "no." People can drop the f-bomb around me all day long and I don't care. Drop it front of my kids and we have a problem. I don't ever require an apology, I just ask that the person control their cursing around my children because I don't want them picking up on it. I'm not offended by the cursing because I found it offensive, I'm just asking for restraint due to small ears. Now if he said "**** you man!" as in insult then I would be offended because of the intent. Words are offensive when they are used in an offensive manner. People can take offense to words for any number of reason (social factors, upbringing, religious views, etc) but that does not mean that the speaker intended any offense.

Click to expand...

Of course, it is your own decision not to apologize for any perceived offense.
I caught myself, when I failed to edit the reprint of the pejoratives found at Wikipedia, discussing pejoratives. I assure you that will never happen again. As I said, I don't use the word in passing, and I don't approve of the word used in any context, by anyone. And if you got that I perceive myself as intellectually and socially superior out of that, I give you kudos, for being close to the mark. But, of course, this was hardly about me, but about your cavalier use of a racial pejorative, whether citing it from another source or using it in genteel company. One can find excuses for anything, anytime, anywhere, anyhow. Intent, no matter how clouded in good will and congeniality, is obvious as a sore thumb.
If you recall, my actual original quote was

How outrageous that you would actually spell out the N-word, on a public forum with African American members present.

Click to expand...

So, I did not directly call you a racist. That is a patent lie.
You could infer from my statement that I think that you are racist....but I did not call you one. Please stick to facts.
Katt Williams, like Paul Mooney, is a comedian...a comedian who, frequently uses the racial pejorative in his schtick. In my estimation, he is a buffoon...much like Michael Richards. I don't follow him. I don't subscribe to his humor. And I speak for no other black person other than myself. I am not responsible for what others may or may not do, think, say, or feel.
That you continue to say the word, indicates that you feel no remorse about using the word, and that you have drawn your line in the sand.
So, there is no need for further exchange, though I was advised that you were reasonable and held no racist views. I fail to see anything other than the conclusion I previously drew. And forgive me if I find the highlighted area above, farcical. I have you on ignore, and won't respond any further to your posts. I'd appreciate it, if you'd kindly reciprocate. Thank you.

I agree that the word in question isn't one that has a place in enlightened society. Aaronssongs has indicated that he has been unfairly persecuted for his race in the past, and for that let me be the first to extend a bit of sensitivity and understanding.

I'd guess your reaction is so rooted in the hatred you've experienced directed toward you and those you love in your lifetime that you cannot unhinge the word from being used as punctuation for violence and atrocity. I don't claim to know for certain, but as I care about the feelings of others I will err on the side of caution and avoid using a word that causes such a negative reaction in my fellow man. Having read many books and seen many movies on this and related subjects, I am aware of the damage that a single word can do.

It is not just a word to some. Can anyone honestly state that me simply typing "Heil Hitler!" does not provoke a (hopefully strongly negative) reaction?

I don't think it's too much to ask to avoid a word that is abhorrent to someone, and if I was talking to you face to face I would most certainly honor your request. I'll do no less on an internet forum.

I do think it's unfortunate that you've ignored Lerxst, however, as I find him to be reasonable and level-headed, a solid contributor, and perhaps more importantly I don't get even the faintest hint of racism from anything he posts. I am certain his comment was in no way meant to be racist.

Analyst said:

I agree that the word in question isn't one that has a place in enlightened society. Aaronssongs has indicated that he has been unfairly persecuted for his race in the past, and for that let me be the first to extend a bit of sensitivity and understanding.

I'd guess your reaction is so rooted in the hatred you've experienced directed toward you and those you love in your lifetime that you cannot unhinge the word from being used as punctuation for violence and atrocity. I don't claim to know for certain, but as I care about the feelings of others I will err on the side of caution and avoid using a word that causes such a negative reaction in my fellow man. Having read many books and seen many movies on this and related subjects, I am aware of the damage that a single word can do.

It is not just a word to some. Can anyone honestly state that me simply typing "Heil Hitler!" does not provoke a (hopefully strongly negative) reaction?

I don't think it's too much to ask to avoid a word that is abhorrent to someone, and if I was talking to you face to face I would most certainly honor your request. I'll do no less on an internet forum.

I do think it's unfortunate that you've ignored Lerxst, however, as I find him to be reasonable and level-headed, a solid contributor, and perhaps more importantly I don't get even the faintest hint of racism from anything he posts. I am certain his comment was in no way meant to be racist.

Click to expand...

I am taken aback, in a most profound and pleasant way. What a thoughtful and respectful post. Thank you, from the bottom of my heart, for your sensitivity and your humanity.
In my mind, if there was a word, which could be misconstrued, or have the slightest bit of injury attached to it, I'd be loathed to use it in any conversation, for fear of hurting someone's feelings.
What I've seen here, lately, is defense of the 1st amendment, to include "hate speech", with the explicit caveat, that the word is not being used as pejorative or directed at an individual, thus, is "innocuous" and "harmless".
For one to insist on expressing the word, after being told that it is offensive, and painful, and me, being told to "get over it", or "to grow up", smacks of arrogance and insensitivity.
It's like being at your mother's house, and using the profanity you use commonly with your drinking buddies. It's just not appropriate. Unless you got a momma like that (not you, just saying).
But, when you care not, who you injure, and words can injure....and you rationalize about it all...what does that say about you as an individual?
That's a horse of a different color...one that I would rather not be kicked by. I moved. I'm sure there very well may be some redeeming qualities....it's a shame I'll never really get to know, one way or another. Again, thank you. A

And if ever I offend, please point it out to me, that I may endeavor not to repeat the error. Apologies are easy.

Words only have the power the listener or reader grant them. Though I've heard that some of Joseph Goebbels recorded propaganda is sealed, never to be heard again.

MrVicchio said:

niggardly

Click to expand...

See, I want to use this word sometimes but I know that it may offend others so I don't. Kudos for having the cahones though.

Words can definitely cause harm. For those who disagree, let me ask a question: Is there anything you are insecure or sensitive about? Does it hurt when someone finds that hot button, and uses words to insult you in relation to it? I'd argue most everyone has at least one of these..at least, no one I've known well didn't. Everyone has private shames and vulnerabilities.

http://christopherleemay.com/2009/04/20/ways-words-wound-heart/

The gist of this article:

1. Whenever we speak to another person images are invoked within their imagination. Actually, the images are invoked on both on the part of the listener and the person speaking. The same is true when we write harsh or kind words to another person, we again evoke the imagination which creates mental pictures. With the spoken word is added the power of sound. Thus, we’re infusing the images with which makes them even more harmful or helpful. In the case of the written word the harm is being created by enriching the imagination with anger or hatred, fear, jealousy, greed and other toxic or harsh emotions. If the words are loving, positive and pleasurable then the higher nature or enlightened mind is invoked.

2. As a result of unkind and harsh words a mental memory and emotional heart wound is created between the two parties. This wound causes us to pull away from one another and shut down. Beyond shuting down communication, we shut down the desire to connect with them. Connection is one of the most powerful motivators of life force within us. While it’s true the wounds can be healed and gaps between the two parties can be eventually bridged, it takes 100 times the energy to heal a wound than it does to prevent the wound the heart of another person.

3. The third harmful effect of harsh speech or words to is to cause people to disengage from one another permanently. This takes place when there is a repeated pattern of continual abuse or neglect of the heart of another when speaking or writing.

Click to expand...

I believe it's very short-sighted to claim words can't cause harm. It's simply untrue, unless you're a cyborg.

Analyst said:

Words can definitely cause harm. For those who disagree, let me ask a question: Is there anything you are insecure or sensitive about? Does it hurt when someone finds that hot button, and uses words to insult you in relation to it? I'd argue most everyone has at least one of these..at least, no one I've known well didn't. Everyone has private shames and vulnerabilities.

http://christopherleemay.com/2009/04/20/ways-words-wound-heart/

The gist of this article:



I believe it's very short-sighted to claim words can't cause harm. It's simply untrue, unless you're a cyborg.

Click to expand...

I know of some posters here, who ought to be reading this particular post.
Not that they would "get it", though.

Analyst said:

Words can definitely cause harm. For those who disagree, let me ask a question: Is there anything you are insecure or sensitive about? Does it hurt when someone finds that hot button, and uses words to insult you in relation to it? I'd argue most everyone has at least one of these..at least, no one I've known well didn't. Everyone has private shames and vulnerabilities.

http://christopherleemay.com/2009/04/20/ways-words-wound-heart/

The gist of this article:

I believe it's very short-sighted to claim words can't cause harm. It's simply untrue, unless you're a cyborg.

Click to expand...

I agree that words most definitely CAN cause harm; I just don't believe any word is universally and unequivically "offensive". I think certain words can be "offensive" to certain people, I think words that are generally never "offensive" can become such in the right context, and I think a large part of a word being able to cause harm is weakness and over sensitivity on the part of the person that is being harmed.

Gwendoline said:

Just curious. What "word" would you use for a man who is "... so overblown on their views that they begin to swing it from an honest attempt to bring men to an equal playing field but instead to place men above women and to actively work to punish and oppress women for the sake of raising up men..."

So how does it work when said that way? And is there a word equivelent to "feminazi" for men, and what is it? Neanderthal? Sounds kinda soft... maybe something a bit harsher, maybe...

Click to expand...

I've heard the words "chauvinist pig" used rather effectively to convey that meaning.

On the topic of the thread...yes, some words are inherently offensive. I find the four letter "c" word to be almost intolerable. The "n" word used to be that way to me, too, until I realized that the only reason it's considered offensive anymore is to play into that whole victim mentality that has been pushed off on the African American community. When I hear the word coming from black people more than anyone else, I find the offensiveness of the word to be questionable, at best. When use of the word is pervasive all through the culture that word is supposedly meant to offend, I consider the word reclaimed and no longer off limits.

I still can't bring myself to use the word, however. I prefer "coon".

Zyphlin said:

I agree that words most definitely CAN cause harm; I just don't believe any word is universally and unequivically "offensive". I think certain words can be "offensive" to certain people, I think words that are generally never "offensive" can become such in the right context, and I think a large part of a word being able to cause harm is weakness and over sensitivity on the part of the person that is being harmed.

Click to expand...

See, this is exactly what I disagree with. What are we, made out of metal?

We're human. We ALL have weak points.

I think your position completely ignores the fact that people come from diverse backgrounds, and have varying levels of pain inflicted on them by others and society throughout their lives. It may well be true that there are few things that hurt your feelings (though I believe very few are truly that bulletproof), but a little sensitivity towards others who may not be as well equipped through no fault of their own (ie, childhood abuse, persecution, etc) shouldn't be such a difficult thing to muster. Instead, you pile on the additional label of "weak" or "oversensitive".

It seems to me that your position is just a rationale for being insensitive and not feeling guilty about it.

Do the words "Heil Hitler" provoke any reaction in you at all? No context, but the words represent something nonetheless.

Analyst said:

See, this is exactly what I disagree with. What are we, made out of metal?

We're human. We ALL have weak points.

I think your position completely ignores the fact that people come from diverse backgrounds, and have varying levels of pain inflicted on them by others and society throughout their lives. It may well be true that there are few things that hurt your feelings (though I believe very few are truly that bulletproof), but a little sensitivity towards others who may not be as well equipped through no fault of their own (ie, childhood abuse, persecution, etc) shouldn't be such a difficult thing to muster. Instead, you pile on the additional label of "weak" or "oversensitive".

It seems to me that your position is just a rationale for being insensitive and not feeling guilty about it.

Do the words "Heil Hitler" provoke any reaction in you at all? No context, but the words represent something nonetheless.

Click to expand...

To tell the truth, I think some people throw up "bluster", to hide insecurities and shortcomings. Pointing fingers before they are "pointed at". It could be the only reason for personal attacks. Projection.

Analyst said:

Do the words "Heil Hitler" provoke any reaction in you at all? No context, but the words represent something nonetheless.

Click to expand...

I think the word "Hitler" carries all the context one needs.

But no, the words "Heil Hitler" do not provoke a reaction by themselves. I immediately think "Nazi" but that is because Hitler was the leader of the Nazi party. That's the only reaction I have, though.