I agree with that up to a point. The point is that it is often impossible to know the intent, and all we are left with is the words and how they are understood by people who hear them. When it comes to a black or gay person 'owning' an offensive word (******, queer etc) and subverting it, the context may be clear. But that usage is not accepted by many black or gay people. When it comes to white or straight people using those words or descriptions - even with the intent of stripping the historical meaning away - it is much harder to establish that different context.
The anguish 4 years ago when Reginald D Hunter did his set (with his usual use of '******' as a provocation and challenge to his audience) at the PFA awards ceremony still captures all the complexity and discomfort about the way language is used. In my opinion then (and still now) Reg uses the word in the right way, but was never going to be acceptable in that environment. The PFA and other football authorities are and were in a panic about how to deal effectively with racism and homophobia. They cannot cope with context or intent and have adopted a binary, rules based response. It gives me little confidence that those authorities understand the issues they are reacting to, but I do have confidence they know how to apply rules.
https://www.theguardian.com/football...r-race-remarks