Imagine a world in which it is literally impossible to offend anyone simply by words. So many things would be solved. We could collaborate and swear freely, no self censorship, no cancelling, no correctness, no offended people. I am already able to do this, so in theory everyone can. So, I am trying to simply promote this mentality and teach people to give up this weakness.
The only reason you imagine "weakness" to be the problem here is because your own privilege makes you incapable of seeing the perspective that many others see.
Words have meanings, and some of those meanings have malicious intent. It's not as simple as "just don't be offended by words". When I'm offended by the TERF who says they're "not against transgender people but just don't like the transgender ideology", I know that the intent behind that is to deny children potentially life-saving treatments and try to force them to be cis, which is impossible and abusive. And as this example I'm giving is euphemistic, it should be clear that it's not the
words that are the problem. It's the meaning and, as mentioned, the intent of those words. In fact, often euphamisms are worse than just blatant expressions of bigotry because they express the same harmful ideas in ways that are easier for centrist liberals to swallow.
To be plainly clear, there is nothing wrong with words like "shit" and "fuck", and it honestly pisses me off that these are considered to be "bad words" while plain expressions of casual sanism (like calling people "crazy" or "insane", or using these kinds of words to mean "shitty" and other plainly negative things) are seen as perfectly acceptable around children. You'd be hard-pressed to find anyone on the left who has any problem with so-called "swear words" that don't marginalize people.
Basically I now see anyone who's not a pacifist as a fascist.
Violence is not a feature exclusive to fascism, and I think it's rather naïve to believe that just allowing empires to kill you is going to be an effective strategy for creating and maintaining any kind of society.
I love all LGBT people, even though I hate what they do etc.
Regardless of how you frame it, this is a queermisic attitude. The only thing all queer people have in common is... being queer. If you hate people
being queer itself, that's only one step removed from hating us in general, a pointless euphemism. On the other hand, if it's something other than being queer that you hate us doing, you're assuming that we all do that thing, which we don't. Queer people are just as diverse as non-queer people.
I simply don't fancy the kind of fashion gay people wear, the way they talk etc.
Ok, so it's the second option.
We don't all dress the same. You're ascribing a stereotype to all of us, probably because you want to rationalize queermisic attitudes you have. What you should do instead is challenge those attitudes and perceptions. Gay people wear clothing that's just as varied as straight people. Same goes for trans people vs. cis people.
For this reason, if there are two groups of people, one of stereotypical gay people and one of your typical hetero people, I will probably _PREFER_ to hang around the heteros as I would prefer to eat icecream to eating broccoli. It is impossible to not have any preferences and tastes in life. This is not hate, it's just a taste, like in fashion etc. But this somehow automatically puts me in the same group as people who literally want to perform a genocide of all gay people.
There's a major difference between not liking a particular person and just assuming that you won't like them because of their gender or sexuality. One is a natural consequence of preferences, one is a systematic effort to avoid having contact with people you're bigoted against. When you go out of your way to say that gay people make you uncomfortable, you are doing the latter, not the former.
Also, something you do doesn't have to literally be genocide before it's queermisic.
Basically, I think the issue of speech is bullshit made up issue that's good for keeping the fascist/capitalism regime going. It creates enemies, strengthens hate and hierarchies.
That's an awfully over-simplified view of the world. People in power drive the working class apart with wedge issues, but "hating harmful language" isn't one of them. The wedge issue at play there is
bigotry, and people targeted by said bigots (because of the influence of the rich) fight back because our survival depends on it. To that end, language does matter. It's how bigotry is normalized and spread, and it is that bigotry which is what divides us in the first place (as pertains this specific wedge issue).
I and other marginalized people can't just make wedge issues go away by just sitting back and taking the abuse dished out at us, because the next step from that is
taking away our rights. In fact, that's already happening all the time. I don't have it near as bad as, say, a black person, who risks getting pulled over and killed by those working for the racist police institution. But there are efforts
right now to implement policies that deny essential health care to transgender children, for instance, and neurodivergent people
right now can have their rights taken away at any moment if the state decides that they're too "insane".
We're not punching bags. We are not pawns in a game of chess. We're people, and many of us are constantly under attack, to varying degrees. If you want to see an end to capitalism, the state, and hierarchies, you need to start thinking of us that way and actually help us in our struggles. You can't just demand solidarity from people who you refuse to show solidarity to, or demand that we just sit and take whatever abuse comes our way so you can supposedly "make the world a better place".