Yes, don't leave it to the professionals with a busy schedule to review your work - build a network of friends who are knowledgeable and interested enough in the subject matter to provide you with constructive and sympathetic (but lucid) observations.

LW functions almost as one such group - I'm tempted to write up a post setting out the rules in Richard Gabriel's book now that the Discussion forum can serve as a lower-pressure environment where people could post pieces specifically for the purpose of getting useful feedback on their writing.

Put [dumb unambitious folks] in a capitalist system where they have to bargain fairly for goods and services that satisfy their desires.

This is a good strategy.

The rest will take care of itself.

But here is where I disagree. It is up to the smart, ambitious and motivated to direct and harness the capitalist system and the dumb people's desires in such a way that they can achieve their own desires. Including those that happen to be altruistic.

I would argue in turn that the developed world has strayed pretty far from capitalism and a lot could be done to bring it back

In what respects would you say that the developed world has strayed from capitalism that it suffers for?

I'm extremely skeptical of the idea that "almost all" interactions in capitalist systems tend to be positive sum. Of course, my area of study (environmental science) is one where examples of negative sum interactions crop up on a continual basis, so I may be biased by exposure, but I think economists tend to be more optimistic about the positive influence of free markets than evidence warrants.

One way is to try and compare similar countries where such offensiveness bans are enforced or not, and see which direction net migration is.

There are many other factors affecting migration. Is it possible to evaluate a single factor's direct influence?

"Our word" is the map, not the territory.

In the realm of social interaction, the territory you're navigating is made up of other people's maps.

However, that also includes members of said minorities who belive that from their merely being members of such groups they have rights or sensibilities others don't. They don't.

I'm not sure what you mean here. They do have extra sensibilities, in the sense that they're sensitive to things others aren't: you aren't hurt (or at least, not in the same way) by the words "nigger" or "queer", whereas they are. They do have extra rights, in the sense that, if they clearly present as queer, they can be more confident about being transparent in their motivations and intentions for using the word, and so can expect to be able to use it in more social situations without repercussions.

So to me the issue is transparency. If I as a straight white male somehow could achieve the same level of transparency regarding my goals and intentions, I should be able to use such words just like black gays. My scheme allows for that; yours doesn't.

I mostly agree with this. I see two problems with it. The first is that there are people who have had extremely negative experiences with the word in the past and thus hearing it from anyone, regardless of the intentions of the person saying it, would hurt them. But that's mostly been addressed by your point about transparency, and the rest is addressed by:

ETA: would you yourself "use ["queer"] with carte blanche in all social situations"?

No, I would not, excellent point. My second issue is, if you don't have any sort of nefarious intentions, what is motivating you to use the word, instead of another one? Are you in a rap battle for the fate of the universe and you absolutely must complete the rhyme "drank a beer, jigger of rum//man that queer nigger was dumb"?

*: At least in the way of the original haters

Keen observation.

Upon reading all of this conversation and thinking about this for several days, I have amended my policy to be more or less the same as yours. I now do not have a problem with people using those words if I, and everyone else present, has a very clear idea of what the person's intentions are. Upon reflection I believe that this is the policy I was actually basing my reactions on, yet it was not the one I was vocalizing. I am now curious as to why I was vocalizing the policy I was. Perhaps to increase my status among the minority I'm a part of? Hmm. I'll be thinking about this for a while.

....aaaand someone just walked by my room yelling "you're a nigger! A double nigger!"

I feel we're talking past each other. What I'm saying (and Yvain is saying) is that if you categorize actions thatpeople find offensive in:

A) Accidental offense (you didn't know someone would be offended)

B) Indifferent offense (you know, but don't care, and do the action anyway)

C) Deliberate offense (you do the action because you know someone will be offended)

.. then "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" falls under C), for the prepretator.

That is a seperate issue from whether it's sometimes acceptable to deliberately offend people, or of how offensive various actions are.

And? That doesn't change the fact that "everybody draw Mohammed day" falls in the category of hostility, not negligence or insensitivity.

Goshdarnit, I had you upvoted until you pulled the "our word" thing. That really irks me

Haha, the ironing is delicious. I was throwing that in there not because I typically find it offensive, but to draw attention to yet another detail that was perhaps overlooked. Not that Yvain did so, but since the topic is things that offend people, I thought it worth bringing up.

Hey, I'm bisexual. Suppose I declare that it's okay with me if Yvain uses the word "queer" to describe people who identify as queer. Then is it okay? I mean, it's my word, right? Can't I share it?

Do you have black friends who have decided that you can say "nigger"? It's the same issue, more or less.

My actual opinion on the subject varies greatly depending on the context. Is it a bunch of non-hetero people talking? Then sure, fire away. Is it a heterosexual that I know personally to be supportive of lgbtqetc rights, has positive opinions of other sexual orientations, et cetera, and the group they're with takes no offense at their use of it? Then sure, absolutely.

But what if it's a heterosexual that I don't know? Well, then it makes me a bit squicky. What if it's you and Yvain talking, and you've previously (before I arrived) said that it's okay for Yvain to say it? I show up, I don't know you're bisexual, Yvain does something that indicates he(?) is heterosexual, and then uses the word queer. I would be weirded out, feel significantly less comfortable, and depending on my prior mood, either push the issue or try to leave.

What if it's just some straight guys talking? Then it has exactly the same problems as a bunch of white people using the word "nigger" amongst themselves. Even more, because there are people who appear to outsiders' glances to be straight, but really aren't, whereas there are very few people who appear to be white but are actually black.

I think it is a very good general rule that if you are not part of a minority, you should not use words that have been specifically socioengineered to cause offense to that minority. White people shouldn't, in general, say "nigger" or "darkie", with rather few exceptions. Similarly, straight people shouldn't, in general, say "queer" or "faggot" or "dyke", with rather few exceptions.

So to actually answer your question, I would say that that makes it perfectly okay for Yvain to use in conversations between the two of you or between him and other people who have expressed the same sentiment as you. That does not make it okay for Yvain to then use that with carte blanche in all social situations.

Sorry for using you as the example, Yvain, when you haven't actually done any of the things we're discussing.

edit: I am quite curious about the downvotes I'm receiving. Could the people who are downvoting me please respond and say why, as Alicorn did? Probably not, since me editing this won't send you a notification, but I thought I'd ask. I would also be extremely curious to know the sexualities of the people who are upvoting Alicorn but not me, vice versa, both, or neither. As a separate question, does anyone know of a way, perhaps similar to Reddit Enhancement Suite, to see the number of upvotes and the number of downvotes, rather than just their sum?

I think the world is better off without sacred cows, rather than with them. The only way to eliminate these kinds of reactions is via "exposure therapy".

"Exposure therapy". Could you explain how that works, doctor? How your cure makes the patient better?

Isn't it great that we have so many people here so sincerely concerned with making the world a better place rather than with rationalizing their own prejudices.

ETA: I Googled for "exposure therapy", and the 2nd item on the list informed me that:

Exposing someone to their fears or prior traumas without the client first learning the accompanying coping techniques — such as relaxation or imagery exercises — can result in a person simply being re-traumatized by the event or fear. Therefore exposure therapy is typically conducted within a psychotherapeutic relationship with a therapist trained and experienced with the technique and the related coping exercises.

For some reason, the karma that knb's comment received really annoys me. When did we come to define rationalism as "thinking about something just deeply enough to achieve self-affirmation, and then pushing the upvote or downvote button"?

Well, the same goes for "everybody draw Mohamed day", no? It's hostility, not negligence.