I once wrote to the BBC to complain about a report showing a politician calling the BNP "nutters", with nobody acting like there was anything wrong with it.
If words genuinely cause offense, then I would not want to use them.... but at the same time I don't think the capacity for many of us to become offended is healthy. The pattern seems to be:
-
A word is used to describe factually a member of a disadvantaged group. It's generally accepted as reasonable and not derogatory
-
Bullies and other mean spirited individuals appropriate the word, shorten or adapt it into the word they use designed to cause offense
-
The majority who don't want to cause offense recoil from the word and another is chosen
-
Over time, perhaps a generation or two, the word, and its abusive counterparts, falls out of common usage and either dies or morphs into something else.
My issue is when a word does morph into something with a very different emphasis and no discernable link to the offensive (or the original) meaning, I don't see why it can't be rehabilitated.
I accept 'monging' clearly does cause offense, and given that mong has been used relatively recently as a term of abuse then fair enough, it shouldn't be used... but 'nutter'.... really? I would have put that in the same category as 'sod off'. Whereas a level of sensitivity regarding language is reasonable, I don't see what's to be gained by developing an ever-expanding list of taboo words just because they may have been used in an offensive context generations ago by some people.
In relation to this, is there a word that can be used as a synonym for 'nutter' that couldn't be deemed 'offensive', if we're determined to search out the source of every word and how it may have been applied by bullies, or by general society in a less enlightened age?