If this is semantics, then you can surely prove me wrong, right?

That makes no sense, if you're hiding behind whatever definition you want, how would I prove you wrong?

You call them semantics because you don't know the answer, but ignoring it lets you not acknowledge your failure to address the issue.

How do I address a personal rant on subjectivity where you use definitions to your advantage? Seems like a waste of time for both of us.

It's also factual.

How about I play your game? Define what a fact is and how are you using this said fact here. Where is your fact derived from?

They might find it insulting or offensive to allow such behavior.

Sure, I don't disagree with this.

Some things are more normal to be offended by than others, and that's what we're talking about here.

Sure.

You're absolutely welcome to tell me where we should draw the line on "how many people need to be offended before a term is banned", if you can.

I didn't imply anywhere words should be banned. I also am not some sort of moral arbiter. But let's not pretend like because words are subjectively offensive we should just suddenly be ok with people being clowns. There is also a deeper level to it. Saying fag to an openly gay shows hostility/hatred/anger etc. towards another individual. The word fag itself is not the problem, it's the sense of being attacked. Words themselves are assigned to certain internal meanings. It's not the words per say, it's the act itself and the fact some people expend energy towards being deliberately hateful or provocative.