That you want to reverse this causality so that the onus is on victims of verbal abuse to not act like victims of verbal abuse is incredibly close to gaslighting.
I'm reversing anything. And overhearing a conversation you are not a part of is not verbal abuse.
Gay men didn't decide to be called f*gg*ts, it was a slur thrust on them by other people as an insult and remains such.
When directed towards Gay people (not just men), you are 100% correct. That's why context of use matters. Look if you are joking around with your friends and someone hits you with a zinger you would say, "Oh Fuck you dude." But obviously that's not the same as saying "fuck you" out of rage and malice. That's why it is important to be able to distinguish these things. And also why it's important for someone who easily takes offense to stop and think about what just happened to determine whether it's really something to be offended by.
Real talk: The fact that you consistently defend the position of shitty fucking people in these discussions, whether it is misogynistic gamers, homophobic CEOs or just all around dickwads, perplexes me something fierce. You are making excuses for terrible behavior and asking the people on the receiving end to grow thicker skin because "boys will be boys" instead of working towards a society in which people aren't repeatedly insulted by assholes. The CEO of Techland is a grown man, he should be able to verbalize his criticism without being a bigot to boot. To suggest that the fault is with the offended employee for not "sucking it up like a grown up" is incredibly backwards.
Cool you think I'm a shitty person then and that's fine. I'm not offended by that, because I understand where you are coming from with that opinion. However obviously it's not one that I share and I don't think I always defend exactly, I just try to dig between the lines and fine reasons as to why a particular situation would happen or at least how, and then evaluate (and sometimes play Devil's Advocate) to the other side.
It's called trying to see both sides of a situation instead of just being on the side of outrage automatically and creating an echo chamber.
Additionally a lot of these claims are made without proof, just reports. And reporting on something without proof is like telling the teacher and someone is being mean to you when they aren't even in school that day. With how popular, and sometimes profitable, to be outraged these days (thanks Anita) I do (admittedly) lean more on the skeptical side of things. However when proof of scumbaggery comes out, as with Ubisoft and Randy Pitchford, I would challenge you to find anything I've said to defend that.
/classic-british-faggots-recipe-435283-Hero-5b86feb9c9e77c0050be9ea8.jpg)
www.thespruceeats.com
