actually, reducing them to the level of schoolyard insults would probably work, it’s just that this one word in particular
has so much from all quarters riding on it remaining ’the ultimate putdown.’
Even with the whole ’re-appropriation’ thing, you could see it getting special treatment, like when these white rappers started coming out they’re all like "whoa boy, you can’t use that, that’s our
Barely anyone would’ve cared if he used "chink" or "wop" or "gook," or if he donned a rice hat and started changing all his Ls to Rs, since that’s been a characteristic of ’rough’ characters in fiction no matter where they landed politically.
both major camps have a bit of a sunk cost philosophy about its use, it’s an interesting phenomena all to itself.
More like it was just a convenient excuse for an organised assault on monetisation. And because the WSJ has alternate funding methods than just
the news/magazine, they plucked the short straw in running it.
They were probably searching for an ’angle’ to ’deal with youtubers’ ever since the likes of Rebel and TYT came about.
WSJ wasn’t being SJW, they were being paid hitmen.
Likely by a news org that wouldn’t
survive the backlash.