The word itself is neither as basic nor well-understood as you claim. Even the very Wikipedia definition you link is too vague to be useful. To give a pertinent example, what does it mean to be treated "in a way that is worse than the way people are usually treated"? Is it necessary for someone to be treated differently from others to be treated worse, or is it possible for identical actions to be "worse" for one person than for another? If the latter case is true, then who ought to decide what constitutes "worse," and on what grounds? Is it possible for this arbiter to come to an unreasonable conclusion, and what happens then?

The questions I asked in that last paragraph are not empty rhetoric. Their answers have major ramifications for current debates: I chose these particular questions because they basically define the different sides of the Adria Richards case. Yet each side treats its answers as self-evident and takes that self-evidence as entitlement to act unilaterally, pushing their definitions onto others rather than attempting to achieve consensus. Is it any wonder that things get so heated in such an environment? I'm no more immune to it than anyone else.