I have been impressed (as I often am) by the intelligence shown by most responses to the recent post concerning the use of racist language in describing the President -- and dismayed by the pushback from folk who don't seem to understand a basic fact of social intercourse. So, with apologies if it's been said elsewhere better, here it is:
The oppressed community gets to decide what is offensive.
This is true of racism. It is true of sexism. It is true of homophobia. It is true of ageism and antisemitism and whatever other -ism you care to name.
Often, when we listen to the voices of the wronged, we learn a lot about what we take for granted. For instance, until I read the original diary, I had never considered the historical implications of saying a black man "has no balls." It's a term I wouldn't use anyway, since I usually try to avoid needlessly vulgar phrasing -- it can undermine your argument to unintentionally offend your reader -- but it was certainly instructive to realize why this seemingly unrelated term would be heard as racist by the African-American community. I learned a bit about language, certainly, but I also had a hitherto invisible (to me) point of privilege identified, so I learned a bit about myself, too.
Similarly, I have over the years learned similarly from women, members of religious minorities, etc. As a gay man, I have helped educate a few folk on just why certain comments are offensive to me. In each case, the same dynamic held true: the oppressed party gets to define what is offensive.
Note that for this to be true the offended party must be, not simply offended, but oppressed. The powerful don't get to define language use to those over whom they exercise power -- or, rather, since they already get to do so, they get no additional such privilege.
So, is it clear now?
1:00 PM PT: UPDATE
Wow! I just came up for air and found my diary on the rec list! I really didn't expect something that seems so obvious to me to generate so much interest. Thank you!