Why us black people can use the "n" word.

[Deleted member]

That's ridiculous. I mean, I have friends of mine who would make jokes along those lines in good humour, but never seriously...

The southern States must be a strange world.

 

[Crimson King]

After that incident, I am really looking at ceasing racist jokes. I make jokes about race because I think race shouldn't be off limits and I am not serious about anything. But hearing this ignorant **** say "******" with so much anger and rage, I really don't know what to think. Before I thought the word was ok because I take it in such gest that all racial epithets mean nothing to me. Now, I really don't know.

 

[Deleted member]

This sounds ridiculous, but ceasing racial jokes just because of some stupid racist chick seems pretty silly.

I really don't know where I'm going with this post, but -

She's just some stupid hick girl. You shouldn't let her get to you. There are a lot of ignorant and intolerant people out there, and really, it's better to keep your cool when meeting them face to face.

I remember a Mormon proselyte came on my subway and started asking me how my day was. I immediately noticed his dress and nametag so I rolled my eyes and started getting angry because..I know..he asked me how my day was. We began to argue or something and the Mormon just kept smiling and responding gently. It was weird, but looking back, I'm sure that I looked more foolish.

I was the ignorant one, the Mormon kept his cool. A little reversal there for you.

**** it's late.

But yeah..it almost sounds as if she was trying to be funny.

I guess to sum this post up:

Don't get really angry when you talk to a racist. The more you talk with them calmly, they'll probably just make themselves out to more of a fool had you argued.

 

[Crimson King]

She was trying to make a joke, but there are numerous times where she gets pleasure from violence against blacks. She claims she saw a black man get run over and just laughed. She also claims there was a lynching near her house and she wishes she could have gone. Both with me calling her a racist and her saying "yes I am."

As much as I should keep my cool, this is just one of the many thing she has done. She is a horrible person in every aspect really.

 

[Erimir]

So why are you friends with her anyway?

I wouldn't go see a movie with someone like that, personally.

 

[Crimson King]

She can get me free food at her mom's restaurant but as far as I am aware, I never was friends with her. She called my girlfriend and I and said we had to go to the movie with her because she didn't want to go with some guy and in the end, she didn't go with him so we went for nothing.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

Black people do not need to use "proper language" to deserve equality. Maybe when there's material equality, you'll get some linguistic equality. But one of those is far more important than the other.

Yes! Communism is the answer! No, not really. Equal rights don't mean special rights for black people and diminished rights for whites.

Why do white people even care so much about getting to use the word? What do you need to use it for? You don't get to use it because of history. If you don't like the fact that the history of the word is such that it was used by white people to demean black people, that's tough luck. The history of the word is not of black people demeaning each other with it, it's of white people using it to demean black people. And it was white people who had the power backing up their insults. When you use it, you are invoking that history, and you can't erase that history.

I care more with the fact that it is a federal offence for one group of people to say something but not another (hate laws). The history behind it is irrelevant.

You (white person) have the legal right to say it, but when you do so, you can't complain that all the historical and social significance comes along with it. When a black person uses it, the context is different, and so the significance is different. Period. So they can use it in more contexts without it being offensive (it can, of course, be offensive when a black person uses it, if they use it a particular way).

You assume this. You assume that "the white man" is keeping the back people down. Someone isn't necessarily evoking the history behind the word when they use it. Negro means black, but "the white man" can't use that word either because it sounds to similar.

And it can be inoffensive when a white person uses it, if it's the right context, or if they are seen as being in-group. But it can't just be used casually.

Why not? "Did you see that trailer trash?" "That man looks like trailer trash." "Look at those straw haired, trailer trash whores!"

I feel that I have a better understanding than many white people of (some of) the reasoning behind it when black people say that only they can use the word (at least casually), because I have similar feelings towards the word "***got". I find that word highly offensive when used by a straight person. Unless I am friends with that person and they are using it the right way. In other words, if they have earned the right to use it through gaining my friendship/trust/etc.

Same point as above.

This isn't to say that I never find it offensive when a gay person uses the word. In fact, I'm not entirely comfortable with gay people using it. But it is significantly less offensive. Gay people have a lower threshold to cross for me to find it inoffensive, because they already have more trust with me on gay issues. I have less reason to fear homophobic actions from them. Some of the same notes apply to "queer" altho that can be used in many more contexts by straight people because of its uses in academia (queer theory, etc.) and activism. We can distinguish between a disparaging usage and a positive usage there.

You don't have the right to not be offended, quite the opposite, you have the right to be offended and to voice your opinion about it no matter how offensive your opinion is.

And if someone straight wants to complain about this, **** em. Gay people are still the victims of hate crimes in the US (and in some countries we are imprisoned, lynched or executed), we can be fired for being gay, we can't marry, we're still discriminated against and people still have to live double lives in the closet. And you're complaining that you can't call me a ***got? You don't get to call me that and have me be ok with it. And I'll use it if I **** please. I would gladly never use it again if all those problems went away. You finally experience a trivial situation where you don't have more privilege as a straight person, and it's some big injustice? No, I don't think so.

Hate crimes are complete bull. They place special emphasis on specific peoples and give them special rights. This goes against the equality spoken of in the Declaration of Independence and is anathema to it.

And I totally understand if a black person feels similarly about the n-word. White people complaining about that are just distracting themselves from the real issues.

And they have the right to be angry. Both groups.

 

[Jeremy Feifer]

She was trying to make a joke, but there are numerous times where she gets pleasure from violence against blacks. She claims she saw a black man get run over and just laughed. She also claims there was a lynching near her house and she wishes she could have gone. Both with me calling her a racist and her saying "yes I am."

As much as I should keep my cool, this is just one of the many thing she has done. She is a horrible person in every aspect really.

At the same time though, there are black people that get a since of pleasure from bad things that happen to white people. Actually every race has people that get a since of pleasure from bad things that happen to another race other than their own.

 

[Erimir]

Yes! Communism is the answer! No, not really. Equal rights don't mean special rights for black people and diminished rights for whites.

I fail to see even a tangential relevance of Communism here. I'm not talking about property redistribution. I'm talking about de facto segregation in housing. I'm talking about segregated majority black and/or Hispanic schools that have no windows, no air conditioning, old textbooks, no computers, and inadequate space. I'm talking about employment discrimination, where a white convicted felon is more likely to receive a call back than a black man with a clean record. I'm talking about how more whites use drugs than blacks, but far more blacks are in prison for drug offenses. Not all of these things are the result of conscious actions by people. I'm not saying there's a big white conspiracy to keep black people down. But that doesn't remove the significance of those problems.

If you were actually paying attention, you would have seen my point was that there isn't equality between blacks and whites, so what black people and white people can and can't say (socially, not legally) is irrelevant in the face of those much more important problems.

I care more with the fact that it is a federal offence for one group of people to say something but not another (hate laws).

That is not what hate laws are. At least not in the US.

Hate laws are only tangentially related to speech. What they're really about is a certain kind of criminal intent. Just like 1st vs. 2nd degree murder laws have to do with intent. The fact that someone said "******" is only relevant in so far as it establishes the intent. Just as knowing that someone had said they were going to kill so-and-so several days before the murder is relevant in establishing that it was premeditated murder. Or they have other reasons to believe you prepared beforehand. For example, if you had just bought a gun the week before the murder. It is not illegal to buy a gun, but doing that a week before murdering someone is going to increase your sentence since it will be evidence for premeditation.

You can only be charged with a hate crime if you have committed a crime, and they have reason to believe it was hate motivated. You are free to say the n-word all you like. It is not a federal offense to say it. It is a (more serious) federal offense to assault or murder a black person simply because they are black. Whether or not you said the n-word is only relevant, as I said, in so far as it can establish that you murdered them because they were black. It is not necessary that you say that, they could establish it some other way. And just because you used the word does not mean that it will be necessarily considered a hate crime (if you had some other motive, that would probably take precedence).

Maybe you don't think that attacking or murdering someone just because they belong to a certain group should be illegal, but that's a topic for another thread. However, in either case, hate crime laws do not make it illegal to say anything (in the US).

Someone isn't necessarily evoking the history behind the word when they use it.

They might not intend to, but they don't have a choice. Sorry. We would have to forget history in order for them to be able to avoid it.

Why not? "Did you see that trailer trash?" "That man looks like trailer trash." "Look at those straw haired, trailer trash whores!"

You can legally use it casually. But it will be considered very offensive. And you can't call someone trailer trash casually and expect them not to be offended either. So what's your point?

You don't have the right to not be offended, quite the opposite, you have the right to be offended and to voice your opinion about it no matter how offensive your opinion is.

I'm not talking about legal rights. I don't know why you keep bringing it up as if I'm saying you don't have the legal right to say these words.

You can say it. But it'll be considered offensive, and it's not socially acceptable. Black people can use the n-word without the same social consequences (and gay people can use "***got"). Tough. You're not a member of the group, so when you use them it's not the same context. Tough. And that's what you're complaining about. But it's a stupid complaint.

For the reasons I explained, it is less often offensive when someone gay uses the word "***got". It is more socially acceptable. That has nothing to do with legal rights. And the original topic had nothing to do with legal rights either. Quit acting like your rights are being taken away. They're not.

Hate crimes are complete bull. They place special emphasis on specific peoples and give them special rights. This goes against the equality spoken of in the Declaration of Independence and is anathema to it.

1. I don't even know why you're talking about hate crimes. That wasn't the subject of the discussion. I mentioned them, but I wasn't talking about hate crime laws.

I would have to agree that gay people being attacked simply for being gay is bull****. My point was that complaining about the fact that we can use words that are used to demean us without it being as socially frowned upon is pretty **** trivial compared to the fact that in some places you might get murdered for being gay.
2. Hate crimes do not give black people special rights. Hate crime laws apply to people of any race. If you are attacked simply because you are white, your attacker could be charged with a hate crime.

However, more black people are victims of hate crimes than white people, so they benefit more from the laws. But notice that they only benefit more because they are targeted more. In other words, they're in a worse off position. The same thing applies to hate crimes based on religion (also protects Christians), nationality, gender (also protects men), sexual orientation (also protects straight people), etc. But as I said, we can take this to a new thread if you want to discuss it more.

Because as I said above, hate crimes are not what the discussion was about. The discussion was about why it was socially (not legally) more acceptable for black people to say the n-word, while it is usually socially unacceptable for people of other races to do so.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

A bit long winded, aren't you.

I fail to see even a tangential relevance of Communism here. [...]

In reference to:

Black people do not need to use "proper language" to deserve equality. Maybe when there's material equality, you'll get some linguistic equality. But one of those is far more important than the other.

If you meant all that other stuff, you might have been a little more descriptive without going overboard.

Hate laws are only tangentially related to speech. What they're really about is a certain kind of criminal intent. [...]

And race should not have anything to do with it. If his intent was to hurt some random person, regardless of the difference (maybe the guy was gay or wore glasses or had a beard, doesn't matter) then that should be taken into account. Specifically using race as criteria is wrong.

You can only be charged with a hate crime if you have committed a crime, and they have reason to believe it was hate motivated.[...]

See above.

Maybe you don't think that attacking or murdering someone just because they belong to a certain group should be illegal, but that's a topic for another thread. However, in either case, hate crime laws do not make it illegal to say anything (in the US).[...]

I think murder is already illegal. But otherwise, the reason a person murders another person should, again, be taken into account and race shouldn't be an automatic qualifier.

You can say it. But it'll be considered offensive, and it's not socially acceptable. Black people can use the n-word without the same social consequences (and gay people can use "***got"). Tough. You're not a member of the group, so when you use them it's not the same context. Tough. And that's what you're complaining about. But it's a stupid complaint.

Actually I hate it when people use the race card in general. I've noticed a lot of lazy people who pull the race card anytime their boss tries to make them do their job. And when their boss tries to fire them, race card. The vocabulary is incidental.

1. I don't even know why you're talking about hate crimes. [...] I mentioned them,[...]

I would have to agree that gay people being attacked simply for being gay is bull****. My point was that complaining about the fact that we can use words that are used to demean us without it being as socially frowned upon is pretty **** trivial compared to the fact that in some places you might get murdered for being gay.

My point remains that they demand that it is demeaning of them while they use it themselves (a lot of the times in demeaning ways). Them using it as a double standard is my problem, not the word.

[...]But as I said, we can take this to a new thread if you want to discuss it more.

Not really.

 

[Erimir]

A bit long winded, aren't you.

I'm sorry. It takes longer to thoroughly refute a bad argument than to make one.

1. I don't even know why you're talking about hate crimes. [...] I mentioned them [...]

And when you quote me could you perhaps not leave off the part that is relevant and is the important point of what I said? One might want to suggest you were setting up a strawman. I mentioned hate crimes in the sense of people being attacked for being gay. You took that and started talking about hate crime laws as if I had said anything about them. Unless you deny the existence of hate crimes, you deny that people are attacked for being gay, then it was irrelevant to the discussion. You just saw the words "hate crimes" and had to run with that tangent because you didn't have anything better to say about that part of my post (I assume if you did, you would've said it).

I am aware of the reason you started talking about them (because I mentioned them), but that doesn't mean it was a good reason.

And race should not have anything to do with it. If his intent was to hurt some random person, regardless of the difference (maybe the guy was gay or wore glasses or had a beard, doesn't matter) then that should be taken into account. Specifically using race as criteria is wrong.
[...]
I think murder is already illegal. But otherwise, the reason a person murders another person should, again, be taken into account and race shouldn't be an automatic qualifier.

I'm not sure what you're talking about here. You say that the intent should be taken into account. Do you mean the intent to harm someone of a specific group (gay people, or Muslims perhaps) should be taken into account?

Why would applying the same when the motivation was racial be any different?

What do you mean by "race shouldn't be an automatic qualifier"? In what way is it an automatic qualifier?

Crimes that take place between people of different races are not automatically considered hate crimes if that's what you're implying.

Actually I hate it when people use the race card in general. I've noticed a lot of lazy people who pull the race card anytime their boss tries to make them do their job. And when their boss tries to fire them, race card. The vocabulary is incidental.

The vocabulary is the topic of the thread. The so-called "race card" has nothing to do with it.

My point remains that they demand that it is demeaning of them while they use it themselves (a lot of the times in demeaning ways). Them using it as a double standard is my problem, not the word.

Haven't I already explained why it is worse? You didn't have anything to say about my personal explanation of why I consider it (usually) more offensive for someone straight to say "***got" that was relevant. You made some comment about "rights" even though I hadn't been talking about legal rights at all. I was talking about what is offensive or acceptable socially.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

I'm sorry. It takes longer to thoroughly refute a bad argument than to make one.

Excuses, excuses.

1. I don't even know why you're talking about hate crimes. [...] I mentioned them,[...]

And when you quote me could you perhaps not leave off the part that is relevant and is the important point of what I said?[...]

You mentioned it, I went further with it. What's so hard to get?

I'm not sure what you're talking about here. You say that the intent should be taken into account. Do you mean the intent to harm someone of a specific group (gay people, or Muslims perhaps) should be taken into account?

Why would applying the same when the motivation was racial be any different?

What do you mean by "race shouldn't be an automatic qualifier"? In what way is it an automatic qualifier?

Crimes that take place between people of different races are not automatically considered hate crimes if that's what you're implying.

Yet often they are, sadly. We don't need extra laws for this.

The vocabulary is the topic of the thread. The so-called "race card" has nothing to do with it.

Where did that come from? You said I was angry because I couldn't say it. I don't care if I can say the word. I was pointing out that its more to do with the race card and its use as a double standard. You can't say that this isn't a race issue.

Haven't I already explained why it is worse? You didn't have anything to say about my personal explanation of why I consider it (usually) more offensive for someone straight to say "***got" that was relevant. You made some comment about "rights" even though I hadn't been talking about legal rights at all. I was talking about what is offensive or acceptable socially.

Good for you.

 

[KAFOR]

I find it hypocritical of SOME black people to use the 'n' word as a means of normal communication between each other. It is considered dandy and well when used between each other, but if other races were to so much as utter half the word, they become upset. I say if you want respect from being called the 'n' word, you should never say it. The human mind, when it picks up something 'catchy' or something that it is attracted to, it will try to incorporate it into the human's daily lives. When other races of people hear the way the 'n' word is used in daily conversation, they will want to use the word so that they will sound 'cool' if you will. I am by no means racists against the black community, but I do find this hypocritical of SOME black people.

 

[cF=)]

As far as I know, there is no "race" between blacks and whites since they can breed together (same thing for asians, arabs, europeans, etc.). Maybe it would be wise to use another term instead because that one is absolutely irrelevant in this case.

 

[Blackadder]

You know, I read Crimson's first post on the first page of this thread.
Not sure if this is going to get me amazingly and endlessly flamed or not, but I'm very much like him in the sense that I also find racial slurs freakin' hilarious, and often call my friends "N*ggas" simply because it seems so silly. I mean, they're white, I'm white, and we're using it in a very different context that what it used to be used in.

Essentially stripping it of its offensive properties for us. If the word is turned on its own head, it comes off as amusing and harmless.

I can't see what's wrong with that, really.

Of course, if someone calls all black people n*ggers seriously and in the "Racist way", that's another story...

 

[Erimir]

You mentioned it, I went further with it. What's so hard to get?

There was no reason to go further with it if you were taking it into irrelevant territory. Not to mention that, as I said, you just picked up on the words "hate crime" and ignore the rest of what I said. You seem to think that what I said was wrong, but you really have said nothing that doesn't boil down to "You're wrong cuz I said so."

Yet often [crimes that take place between people of different races] are [charged as hate crimes], sadly.

Evidence?

Where did that come from? You said I was angry because I couldn't say it. I don't care if I can say the word. I was pointing out that its more to do with the race card and its use as a double standard. You can't say that this isn't a race issue.

It's not the "race card" to say that you can use words that refer to your group more freely than people who are not in that group.

If you don't care if you can say the word, why do you care that black people can use it more freely?

Good for you.

Translation: I can't show why you're wrong, but I'm going to assume you are anyway.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

There was no reason to go further with it if you were taking it into irrelevant territory. Not to mention that, as I said, you just picked up on the words "hate crime" and ignore the rest of what I said. You seem to think that what I said was wrong, but you really have said nothing that doesn't boil down to "You're wrong cuz I said so."

You're not wrong just because I say so. I don't understand why you are so preoccupied with the fact that I took one of your many points and decided to expound on it. Why is it making you so fussy? Can I not debate any one point, must I take your entire argument as a whole?

It's not the "race card" to say that you can use words that refer to your group more freely than people who are not in that group.

If you don't care if you can say the word, why do you care that black people can use it more freely?

So I dislike hypocrites. *shrugs*

Translation: I can't show why you're wrong, but I'm going to assume you are anyway.

Good boy. You go ahead and think that if it makes you feel better.

 

[Erimir]

You didn't take one of my points. That is the point.

I said that gays were the victims of hate crimes, as in, gays are attacked simply for being gay.

It had nothing to do with hate crime laws, and they had absolutely no relevance to what I was talking about. Complaining about hate crime laws does not have anything to do with my argument. I don't understand how you don't get that.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

You didn't take one of my points. That is the point.

[...]I don't understand how you don't get that.

And now I will twist your words for my pesonal amusement. Wait, I don't really need to.

Everything is not about you. Although I was using one of your points. You talk about history, I talk about hate laws and we all end up unhappy.

 

[Keitaro]

I hate the fact that the "N" word has become one of the most difficult to say words in public for many races. With the way society is at the moment, someone who is not black could say the "N" word and get expelled from school as I've seen a teacher do it on tv. That's just rediculous.

I myself am black and used to use the word for fun although I hated the word but sometimes I may say it during normal conversation with another black person. IE: "*****!! Where the hell are you!?" or playing Zelda slashing a Goron that looks kinda black screaming "*****!! *****!!" I didn't mean it in an offensive way and I know anyone who was watching me play knew that too. I just don't like when it's used publicly by blacks when talking loud or when blacks and even spanish get angry at other races for saying it saying they are not supposed to say it. Freedom of speech??

 

[Erimir]

Everything is not about you. Although I was using one of your points. You talk about history, I talk about hate laws and we all end up unhappy.

What I should have said is that not only was it not a point I was making, but it has no relevance to the topic at hand. It's just a red herring that you brought up because you've got some reactionary stick up your butt about all these "special rights" for minorities (that you clearly don't know much about).

 

[Gamer4Fire]

It was a point, now it isn't a point. What you say has no relevance to the topic at hand, I can agree with you on that. Its fishy, knee jerking,
reactionary rubbish. And I don't know much about minority rights. Nice to know that you know so much about me.

What's your next trick going to be? What am I thinking right now?

Nope, wrong again. Anyways what does any of that have to do with people spouting derogatory comments at each other and getting angry when one of them isn't the same race as them?

Oh, and could you please stop posting your sig in the debate hall. Crimson King has been cracking down on it recently.

 

[Erimir]

Well, you don't understand how hate crime laws work, and your claim that any interracial crime is considered a hate crime is completely unsubstantiated so... until further evidence is at hand, the only things I've heard you say about "special rights" has been wrong and/or unsubstantiated. So yeah, seems a reasonable conclusion. Not mind reading.

I dunno, you tell me, what do hate crime laws have to do with it?

Do you possibly have something substantial to say about the comments I made that were, you know, about the topic at hand? Or do I need to explain in-group/out-group dynamics in depth to you before you'll get it?

I haven't been posting my sig intentionally, I haven't been paying any attention to the check boxes at the bottom, but sure, I'll make sure it's not checked in the future.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

Use of epithets is one of the criteria used to help determine motive for a crime (among other things), whether it is a homosexual or colored person, etc. It moves into the realm of special rights when laws are created to protect specific "kinds" of people or give them extra protections under the law. I find this abhorrent in the context of equal rights. So discriminatory speech isn't in and of itself hate crimes, but I never said it automatically was.

It also moves into the realm of "special rights" when the use of such epithets are the basis for firing an individual for using them. Although there is no legal basis to fire the person, discrimination laws are used to prevent recourse. This isn't an actual right from law, but an extension of society using the current legal system. So it isn't a hate crime (technically).

I will admit I have no specific court cases to point out, nor do I care enough to spend my time researching the issue. This simply isn't that important to me.

If people simply wish to use racial slurs, I don't care. You don't have to use them to be hateful and using them doesn't automatically make you hateful. Crimson King pointed out a lovely lady who apparently does not need them to get her point across, yet does. But that is her problem. And if people have a problem being called names, let them. But don't bring it into the legal system.

As for the rest of your points, I neither remember nor care what they were.

And the sig thing was just a friendly reminder. As I said, Crimson King has been cracking down on it recently. You'd notice a few of my posts have their sig on them, also.

 

[Erimir]

Use of epithets is one of the criteria used to help determine motive for a crime (among other things), whether it is a homosexual or colored person, etc.

Or a heterosexual or white person. You seem to be forgetting that part.

It moves into the realm of special rights when laws are created to protect specific "kinds" of people or give them extra protections under the law. I find this abhorrent in the context of equal rights.

Those laws protect all people. They happen to protect gays more than straights and blacks more than whites because those groups are more often targeted for violence because of who they are. That's the problem, not the law.

As I've explained before, there is no special right. If someone assaults someone simply because that person is white (and it can be shown that this was the case), then that can be charged as a hate crime.

So discriminatory speech isn't in and of itself hate crimes, but I never said it automatically was.

I never said that you said it was. You did say, however, that it was illegalizing certain kinds of speech. Which I explained was wrong. You also said that most interracial crime (I'm guessing you're mainly referring to white on non-white crime but not the other way around) is automatically considered a hate crime. A claim that you have yet to substantiate.

It also moves into the realm of "special rights" when the use of such epithets are the basis for firing an individual for using them. Although there is no legal basis to fire the person, discrimination laws are used to prevent recourse.

That is not "special rights." It is completely legal to fire someone for using such epithets (and they could fire you as well for using epithets directed at white people or Christians, and they probably would). An employer can fire such a person for causing conflict in the workplace, harassing other employees, for driving away customers or even just violating company policy that you agreed to uphold as a condition of employment. If you're insulting your coworkers, you can be fired. And I'm pretty sure this would be held up even if an employer was firing a black employee for using the n-word. Of course, in many workplaces, black people would refrain from using such language anyway (I doubt many black people would call anyone the n-word while working in an office).

You don't have complete free speech in the workplace (note how you can't tell your boss to **** off), so you're not really protected from firing for using epithets.

This isn't an actual right from law, but an extension of society using the current legal system. So it isn't a hate crime (technically).

Errrr... how could it be considered a hate crime at all? I don't see why you said that.

I will admit I have no specific court cases to point out, nor do I care enough to spend my time researching the issue. This simply isn't that important to me.

So what was your opinion based on then? When you're stating these laws are bull**** and saying that they are applied a certain way as if this were fact? Just assumption? Just what the conservative politicians told you?

And if people have a problem being called names, let them. But don't bring it into the legal system.

I never said anything about bringing it into the legal system.

Except for the discussion on hate crimes. Which I already explained has nothing inherently to do with slurs, since you need not use a slur to be charged with a hate crime. Hate crimes aren't meant to stop people from using slurs, they're meant to discourage people from targeting people simply for being members of a certain group.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

I never said that you said that it brought it into the legal system. I brought up the point.

Other than that, you don't seem to understand what I'm writing because you keep repeating me.