I agree those examples represent positive changes. But what is the direction of causation? Did people become less homophobic because "gay" stopped being used as an insult, or the other way round? Did nazism end because people stopped saying "useless mouths", or the other way round?
I think the simple answer is: it's both. Changes in attitude cause language changes, and vice versa. But the balance of these forces isn't necessarily equal, and it may tip from one side to the other at different times in history. I would speculate that, in a society with a sustainable pattern of moral 'growth', more importance is placed on improving our ideas (through open discussion, taking in a wide range of perspectives, including those we find disagreeable) and allowing most language changes to flow organically from that. If the focus shifts too far towards trying to directly influence what people say (at the level of words/phrases), we risk stunting moral progress by encoding the status quo as dogma. Which, unless we are sure we already have the answers to all future moral questions, would be bad.
> Did people become less homophobic because "gay" stopped being used as an insult.
I can only speak from my own personal experience but yes! Absolutely 1000% yes. That is exactly the point and the intended goal of reclaiming the term.
The parent chose the usage of gay as an example of one direction of the push and pull of "language influences norms" and "norms influence language" but that dynamic only really applies when language develops naturally. When people start purposely influencing language then that goes out the window. Reclaiming the gay, f*g, queer, etc. was and is an active effort by the LGBT community and allies to directly influence norms through language.
I think the discrepancy mostly comes down to context and judgement. It's too tempting to forget to apply context and judgement because doing so requires substantially more research and mental effort.
Language and culture are intertwined like electricity and magnetism. Clear causality is only approximate because it always goes both ways, and solutions have to tackle both fronts.
Hell, language defines a lot of norms. Whether or not something is “a thing” boils down to whether there’s a word for it. The difference between homosexuality being seen as a mental disorder and part of everyday life is how we talk about it.
I think the simple answer is: it's both. Changes in attitude cause language changes, and vice versa. But the balance of these forces isn't necessarily equal, and it may tip from one side to the other at different times in history. I would speculate that, in a society with a sustainable pattern of moral 'growth', more importance is placed on improving our ideas (through open discussion, taking in a wide range of perspectives, including those we find disagreeable) and allowing most language changes to flow organically from that. If the focus shifts too far towards trying to directly influence what people say (at the level of words/phrases), we risk stunting moral progress by encoding the status quo as dogma. Which, unless we are sure we already have the answers to all future moral questions, would be bad.