i'm not a linguist. linguistics is a completely separate discipline to literature and is much more related to logic, cognitive science, semantics, semiotics, etc.
what you're asking are political questions, in any case, and trying to deflect it onto a matter of 'expert opinions' and 'expert debate' seems disingenuous, to me. language qua social tool for communication doesn't belong to linguists; they don't have some special privileged view or ability to adjudicate on the matter.
'deconstruction' is a literary theory from the 1960s and came from structuralism and poststructuralism. i could go into this at length but what people discuss when they mention 'deconstruction' nowadays is just surface-level culture war stuff, in the same breath as 'postmodern cultural marxism' and whatever gets mentioned. it's a weird phantom construction from the polemic far-right, yoking together all sorts of stuff that has never had a particularly smooth or uncomplicated reception in american culture. the idea that there's a thing called 'french theory' or 'the frankfurt school' that has infiltrated american academia with its culturally destructive 'deconstructionist' methods is just commentary-section polemic. it would take me about 15 paragraphs to unpick the influence of 'continental' theory on anglophone academia, and, trust me, for most of its history it has been rejected and debated to hell even in the arcane and esoteric backwaters of humanities faculties.
deconstruction was a revolution in textual interpretation; as a revolutionary praxis or some sort of 'weapon' being used in culture wars, not so much. there's very little in derrida or lacan or any other abstruse french thinker from the 1960s that would make a cultural conservative lose sleep. of course, they're not actually reading them (nor the 'franklin school', evidently).
It seems to me that we're also painting a picture where the wrong words/phrases are perceived to be part of a hidden structural, if not almost conspiratorial, form of oppression of one group vs another.
this is an extremely adulterated and bowdlerized account of what deconstruction is. it's not about finding 'wrong' words/phrases at all. this sort of language policing is a feature of the 'id-pol' centre-left, or liberal-progressive, if you like, toolkit. it has very little to do with linguistics, with literary theory, or with deconstruction specifically. it's about a current in liberal thought that has grown increasingly to focus on group identity as a locus for political struggle and representation; in a similar way, the continuum of social sciences from anthropology thru sociology to psychology have had their own vogues for studies focussing on 'bodies' and, more recently, disembodied 'voices'. these are interesting ways of thinking that don't necessarily need to be pressed or plied to an explicitly political end. the stuff you're raising, again, is just liberal identity politics. it's relationships to the academic 'core' is tendentious at best.
w/r/t the 'n-word', lots of groups have coded language and their own systems of signs. lots of black people are not okay with rappers or public figures using the word; even at best, it's still a term of opprobrium or a taboo term, even if rappers do use it as part of their 'discourse'. it has clearly had its own history, for e.g. with NWA, as a shock-factor and a wake-up call to speakers of the language as a whole. this is less, again, about linguistics per se and more about how social groups regulate themselves and have limits on 'acceptable' speech. this isn't really a different phenemonon from, say, church groups taking a hard line on blaspheming language or swearing. you can say 'fuck' and 'shit' with your college friends but not on sunday when you're at service. what's the big deal?
why are you so vexed and upset that you can't drop the n-bomb, anyway?
