It’s the new language police version of the word, man.
Get used to it.
Nope. Profanity can be fair or unfair. Slurs are always unfair.
BTW-- Why not let me answer the question before answering for me, asshole?
So, you are assuming that all of those groups can always can fairly have profanities directed at them, is that what you are implying/writing?
Treating them as groups and not individuals?
I afraid I need more than a big red arrow
What’s your point?
I just asked a question that came to mind, not sure what your problem is.
Well, I dunno about “always,” but when someone belongs to the group on the basis of that group’s activity, and that activity is immoral, then why the hell would it be wrong to direct insults at the group level on the basis of that immoral activity?
If you disagree that the activity of the groups I named is immoral, that’s fine. Just insert some group you do think is immoral on the basis of its activity. I may not agree with you (probably won’t, actually), but the point holds.
My point is that you linked to a definition of “slur” that equated it to “insult,” and then complained about my noting that a definition that equates slurs to insults is a bad idea.
You told me twice what I’m “assuming” before I was able to answer. (And the “asshole” part was a joke, btw.)
It’s only a bad idea to you
A slur is a type of insult
That does not imply that all insults are the same
Right, so it’s OK to use profanity towards people/groups with whom one disagrees edit and are engaged in immoral behavior. Got it, I think.
But not use “slurs”.
I should have written “you appear to be assuming”.
Lol “asshole was a joke”.
That’s pretty funny!
Can’t we all just get along.
That would be a good thing to strive for, certainly.
Well, it’s okay IMO to use profanity generally. I really fucking value the ability to say that something is bullshit when that’s my goddamn opinion. 
I also value the ability to insult people, individually or in groups, which may or may not involve profanity.
But slurs are a different story, because no matter how angry you are at a gay man, and how good your reasons for being angry at him may be, that doesn’t justify calling him a “fag.” Because that makes it about his identity, and this identity has been used-- and is continued to be used, in some places-- as a basis to brutally oppress (aka “kick the shit out of”) the people referenced by that term.
I used to know a guy who thought it was fine to call a black person the n-word, because he didn’t consider all black people to be n-words-- just the ones he he didn’t like. So to him, it wasn’t racist because it was about the individual.
If you can see the obvious error in that kind of thinking, you can see how the same problem exists with words like “fag,” “towel head,” “whore,” “tranny,” etc. If you can imagine the sound of a word being screamed at somebody while they’re getting curb-stomped, it might just be a slur you’re thinking of.
But which came first, the movie or using the word in that context?
I disagree, @Rillion , that slurs are inherantly bigoted
If I say say you are bad at your work, that is a slur
If I say you are bad at your work because of your gender, that is a bigoted slur
And for the record, when I get into the UD, you’re definitely not getting a mention
Nope. That’s you insulting/disparaging me.
If I say you are bad at your work because of your gender, that is a bigoted slur
Also nope. Also insulting/disparaging, in a bigoted way, but not a slur. If you said “That slut is bad at her work because she’s such a slutty whore slutmonster” (trying to keep things light here), that would be you insulting/disparaging me using slurs.
I have no idea what a UD is, but okay.
That’s the dictionary definition of a slur. Bigotry is not a requirement, even if they seem to go hand in hand.
How many times is it necessary to do this? Dictionaries are not lawbooks of language-- they are compilations of usage. And “usage” is not the same thing as “useful.” If most people open a can of soup with a rock, you’re not going to convince me that I should do that too instead of using a can opener.
Instead, let me ask you something:
Why would you not want a distinction between words that are simply mean, and words that carry the connotation of historical brutal oppression? Because the only answers that come to mind are “Because I don’t think the latter group of words actually exist,” or “I want the latter group of words, which do exist, to only be considered as bad as the former group.”