fartwithheadphoneson:

I know what it feels like to be called a “dirty spic” does that qualify me? :)
When you’re hurt by hearing a word, it isn’t so much the actual word as it is the hateful intention behind the word. We could replace the word faggot with the word cookie and as long as everyone knew that cookie was the new word for it, people would then be offended by me saying cookie.
The word alone is not the problem, the intention to harm is.

Actually, you are both right (M.A. in Communication here, not saying I’m perfect, just adding to the discourse). The problem isn’t the word (or any word), it is your view of communication.
You (message sender) apparently see communication as transmission focused. Your meaning is the “true” meaning, and any error is on the part of the receiver. This is very much related to mass communication (more TV/magazines/radio than blogging) because there is no back and forth to reach an agreed meaning.
Both smthngironic and nikaras apparently feel that the “true” meaning lies in the interpretation of content - the message received trumps the meaning intended. How I feel because of what you said/did is the most important factor. This lies a little closer to the PC/Critical view of communication that sees meaning as independent from (or at least not entirely dependent on) the message sender’s intent. 
Me, I think the “true” meaning lies somewhere in the middle. Communication is NEVER one sided. It takes at least two, and the more people you add the screwier it can get.
For example, if I see a person in need of assistance, walk up to them and say “may I help you (derogatory term)?” there are at least two possible ways for each of us to understand this interaction. I could be unaware that I am using a hurtful name, and my intentions are good. Or perhaps I am trying to make them feel bad without being overtly agressive. They can choose to interpret my actions in either of these ways as well. But what happens next will be because of a combination of my meaning and their understanding of it. 
1. They think I’m an asshole but I’m trying to help? They flip me off and I’m confused or hurt (looks like what happened here?). Pretty much just a big misunderstanding!
2. I’m an asshole and they think I’m an asshole? Same interaction, but I get the satisfaction of knowing I accomplished my goal of hurting them.
3. They think I’m nice but I’m an asshole? They accept my help, and I have to choose between helping someone I dislike, or being more overt in my intention to hurt their feelings.
4. They think I’m trying to help and I am? They accept my help and everybody feels all warm and fuzzy.
Obviously things can get pretty complicated pretty fast, but hopefully you all can also see (if you didn’t already), that there is more to communication than intention OR interpretation. 

fartwithheadphoneson:

I know what it feels like to be called a “dirty spic” does that qualify me? :)

When you’re hurt by hearing a word, it isn’t so much the actual word as it is the hateful intention behind the word. We could replace the word faggot with the word cookie and as long as everyone knew that cookie was the new word for it, people would then be offended by me saying cookie.

The word alone is not the problem, the intention to harm is.

Actually, you are both right (M.A. in Communication here, not saying I’m perfect, just adding to the discourse). The problem isn’t the word (or any word), it is your view of communication.

You (message sender) apparently see communication as transmission focused. Your meaning is the “true” meaning, and any error is on the part of the receiver. This is very much related to mass communication (more TV/magazines/radio than blogging) because there is no back and forth to reach an agreed meaning.

Both smthngironic and nikaras apparently feel that the “true” meaning lies in the interpretation of content - the message received trumps the meaning intended. How I feel because of what you said/did is the most important factor. This lies a little closer to the PC/Critical view of communication that sees meaning as independent from (or at least not entirely dependent on) the message sender’s intent. 

Me, I think the “true” meaning lies somewhere in the middle. Communication is NEVER one sided. It takes at least two, and the more people you add the screwier it can get.

For example, if I see a person in need of assistance, walk up to them and say “may I help you (derogatory term)?” there are at least two possible ways for each of us to understand this interaction. I could be unaware that I am using a hurtful name, and my intentions are good. Or perhaps I am trying to make them feel bad without being overtly agressive. They can choose to interpret my actions in either of these ways as well. But what happens next will be because of a combination of my meaning and their understanding of it. 

1. They think I’m an asshole but I’m trying to help? They flip me off and I’m confused or hurt (looks like what happened here?). Pretty much just a big misunderstanding!

2. I’m an asshole and they think I’m an asshole? Same interaction, but I get the satisfaction of knowing I accomplished my goal of hurting them.

3. They think I’m nice but I’m an asshole? They accept my help, and I have to choose between helping someone I dislike, or being more overt in my intention to hurt their feelings.

4. They think I’m trying to help and I am? They accept my help and everybody feels all warm and fuzzy.

Obviously things can get pretty complicated pretty fast, but hopefully you all can also see (if you didn’t already), that there is more to communication than intention OR interpretation.