@pach1-pach1 left this reply on my post about avoiding using words like "degenerate," so I wanted to talk about it a bit more in depth.
Quick disclaimer that I am not black, and my opinion on words that were specifically used as anti-black slurs should be taken with a grain of salt because of this. Additionally, I'm from the U.S. and English is my only language. This is likely an influential factor in my takes. Not everything I say may be relevant to other languages or cultures.
Personally, I think that it's kind of difficult to make a one size fits all rule about an ever-shifting language and culture. Something that was offensive a long time ago may not be offensive today, and vice versa. Time stops for no one, and it definitely doesn't stop for language; language will naturally alter significantly over time.
I'm going to use the specific words from my previous post and the reply—"degenerate" and "spooky"—as examples. When you take a step back from it and look at the history, yeah, it's pretty sinister that a word we know to mean "scary" was used as an anti-black slur. I think it would be ignorant at best to deny that. But it's also true that the directly offensive iteration of the word has mostly fallen out of use in modern times. Many people aren't even aware of the word's racist history. When a slur falls out of use, but the words it inspired remain in the language under a new meaning, what do you do?
With the gradual shift in language over time, it's hard for me to say when exactly it crossed the line from antiquated slur to being mostly detached from its previous context. But I generally believe that once a word becomes so detached from its offensive roots that the majority of people would never make the connection between the current word and the old one, it has pretty successfully taken on a new life. (This isn't to say that it's never used as a slur these days, just that its pretty rare, and in those cases there's sort of an element of surprise that the bigot would choose such a dated term.) The argument could be made that it shouldn't have, but it's the kind of incredibly common word that would be hard to eradicate from the vocabulary of society at large by this point.
I also think that it's relevant that the origin of the word spooky predates its use as a slur. The word "spooky" can be traced back to the Dutch word for apparition, or specter, and this use was common before it began to be used as a racial slur during World War II. You could argue that it's less that the word is inherently racist, and moreso that racists took a word that meant something scary and supernatural and then applied it to black people.
Again, I'm not black, but I was aware of this history, and I have yet to meet a single black person who believes that the word "spooky" shouldn't be used at all by its modern definition. (Which doesn't mean no black people feel that way! Fell free to chime in on this post if you're black and disagree.)
The more obvious problem with words like degenerate, to me, is that the harmful usage never actually went out of style or got replaced by a new meaning. "Degenerate" has seen consistent use by conservatives for a long time, most often to refer to anything kinky or queer, OR as a tool to lump kinkiness and queerness together with something like pedophilia. Think about how conservatives have been using the word "groomer" in recent years–they're trying to alter language at will to push their bigoted political stances. Most people would consider themselves anti-grooming, I'd say, but they're not all defining "grooming" the same way. Laws they push as "anti-grooming" are really just anti-queer, like saying that drag queens shouldn't read books to children, or that teachers shouldn't ask students their pronouns.
(There is also more than one definition to the word degenerate. I don't think there's anything wrong with utilizing the other definitions, such as to say that a crumbling building is degenerating.)
Words like "degenerate" are somewhat intentionally vague: "someone who is morally corrupt." With no context for what the speaker personally deems morally corrupt, this could mean anything. It's meant to put an idea in your head of what the supposed degenerate in question is like. You may be picturing "a degenerate" as a pedophile, or an incel, or a racist. They're more likely picturing "a degenerate" as someone kinky, queer, or polyamorous.
The non-specificity of the word "degenerate" is why conservatives love it so much. They can trick some of their opponents into agreeing with them if they claim to be anti-degenerate instead of anti-queer, or anti-groomer instead of anti-trans. "I'm not a bigot, I just believe we need to think of the children." That's why I think it's usually for the best to replace it with something more specific. It's only uniquely useful as defamation if you're hoping to obscure exactly what you're talking about.
"Degeneracy" was adopted by the Nazis in the 1920s to refer to art by Jewish people, Freemasons, or communists. In 2024, Trump still refers to his opponents as degenerates.
Tl,dr; I think this is a super case-by-case basis issue when it comes to different words with questionable histories. Some are distanced enough from their past that it could be mostly a futile waste of time and energy to try and convince others to stop using them. Some are far too fresh and active to ignore. It's an important conversation to have, about which words are worth the battle.
Maybe I'm missing information, or my perspective is flawed, and we shouldn't be using "spooky" anymore, either. I'm open to that possibility, should someone teach me otherwise.
