> But in this context, the purportedly irrational belief is that some phrases are offensive. If you accept that there are people who would, rationally or not, be offended by some phrases, then I don't understand why you would even make the claim that it's absurd to believe that some people would be offended by some phrases.

Now I understand why we are talking passed each other. Thank you for the clarification.

You are reframing my premise and, in doing so, changing it to something I never said.

Although before I explain the source of our misunderstanding, I want to point out the irony that you are coming from a philosophically "subjectivist" position and are defending a philosophical "intrinsicist" position. Usually they are two opposite extremes and tend to be at odds with each other.

Subjectivism is the idea that perception creates reality. We often will hear people use language like "my truth" vs "your truth." Your position is subjectivist in the sense that you are clinging to a premise (that I never refuted or discussed) which states that "SOME people are offended by certain words, therefore 'bad words' exist."

Again, that's not the premise I stated or was discussing. But after your clarification, this is the premise that you thought we were discussing.

The intrinscist position states: "Certain words are bad by their nature. They will automatically cause ANYONE who hears them to be offended."

it is the "intrinsicist" position that I was calling absurd. I never said that there aren't people who hold this belief. And I never said that there was no such thing as PEOPLE who get offended by words.

I was saying that the idea that a word unto itself can be "bad by nature" is absurd. And I stand by that.