Abstract
The explanatory challenge posed by slurs is often framed as the challenge of explaining what makes a slur offensive when an extensionally equivalent ‘neutral counterpart’ is not. Sometimes this framing is merely illustrative, but sometimes it is theoretically significant. Proponents of a class of theories I will call ‘contrastive signaling theories’ claim that slurs are offensive in virtue of a contrast with their neutral counterparts. The idea that there are any neutral counterparts, however, has recently been subject to sustained criticism. My aim here will be to argue that contrary to appearances, the viability of contrastive signaling theories does not in fact depend on there being extensional equivalents to slurring expressions – for contrastive signaling, close enough will do.
