I actually think that most people agree with you, but being hacker news, the downvotes come from a perceived lack of rigor in your reasoning.
For instance, you say "normalization that's designed to subordinate" -- 'designed,' eh? By whom?
You also state "by repeating it, that is the sentiment you are reinforcing," but I find the justification given confused and weak ('because the meaning does not change').
You also mention a common cultural trend: the notion that words originally applied negatively to groups can be appropriated for positive use by others. But instead analyzing this mechanism, you just blanket-assert that the negative words are the property of the slurred group and that others are, in general, not allowed to use those words.
I don't think most people here would state "I'll use derogatory word X all I want," and I think you're spot-on about the origins of the expression in this case, but this particular post smelled fishy for some reason.
For instance, you say "normalization that's designed to subordinate" -- 'designed,' eh? By whom?
You also state "by repeating it, that is the sentiment you are reinforcing," but I find the justification given confused and weak ('because the meaning does not change').
You also mention a common cultural trend: the notion that words originally applied negatively to groups can be appropriated for positive use by others. But instead analyzing this mechanism, you just blanket-assert that the negative words are the property of the slurred group and that others are, in general, not allowed to use those words.
I don't think most people here would state "I'll use derogatory word X all I want," and I think you're spot-on about the origins of the expression in this case, but this particular post smelled fishy for some reason.