I'm not a person that would use "****" or "gay" and personally enjoy their absence in casual discussion, but I wouldn't call someone an outright asshole for saying such empty words because that's all they are, even the people offended project something else that fills it up with something not intended by the speaker (which I'm not trying to disallow or look down upon here). If those talking held truly homophobic views or are complacent/supportive of the actual act of ****, then yeah, I'd call them an outright asshole. If those talking were told specifically that people around them had certain buzz words that had some compulsive emotional effect on them and they then proceeded to intentionally say them in order to trigger such a response, then yes, I'd call them an outright asshole. Otherwise, they're not intending much more when they cry out "Jesus Christ!" And none of these scenarios are about some sense of entitlement, and that's not really a good thing to target because people on the other side would simply accuse others of expecting entitlement by saying "I'm offended".
They could just as easily insert any other expression or word to relay the emotion they're getting across and the ones that come out are just what has been inculcated into them (from admittedly brain-dead or bigoted origins), which is also the very same reason why it isn't a big deal to adapt your vocabulary in such situations to try and avoid the entire conflict to begin with. It's just that by far the word that to me is tossed the most around and is the most offensive, out of principle, not feelings, is "should", and that is one that although subtle, holds much more power and is much less empty than words such as "****", "gay", etc. and one that I fear will grip us socially to the point where it'll choke the life out of it. And for that reason I'd never try to constrict or judge such people personally.
Because I'd rather people just relax and have fun which is the point. And those who raise their voices on the opposite side of entitlement, who wish to say whatever they please, can kill that too because they're coming from a pedestal they've granted themselves as well. So I'm not trying to call out any "side" of this issue, I would just like for everything to be natural and for us to be in-tune with our setting, which isn't the same as calling upon a Will to Power here and creating some dichotomy between a freaking community, around games made for enjoyment no less. I mean damn. In society, everyone has to compromise in order to function, to evolve, and that falls on both "sides" here, there shouldn't be a battle for the single High Horse to decree which people should be adhering to who, even with a majority to minority ratio involved.
None of what I've said here has anything to do with sexism, which I don't think was the point of this topic but was mentioned at somewhere. That's a completely different animal that I don't believe can even really be compared to this at all. And for the record, I obviously wish to see good treatment of females. Although I don't think we'd really see anyone speak up about wanting otherwise despite it being a real issue (to whatever degree it is, I've very little experience witnessing it). I don't believe that males are wrong in every sense to treat the gender they are attracted to differently because hey, we all treat people different depending on charm, and guys we think are "handsome" will amorally influence people just as girls we think are "cute" will amorally influence people as well, just as charismatic people in general do. But of course, there are truly anti-social aspects of it that are undesirable by virtue of how it by definition damages a community.
