PERMABANS (though you did not know it!)

[JoshyBoy]

I'm sorry if I've upset you owen, but the point I am trying to make - which I'll admit I didn't really make clear - is that the "n" word (I won't use it from now on, forgive my insensitivity) was used for almost a couple of hundred years, for example in the first world war, in a non-derogatory way. It's only recently that Political Correctness has gone crazy, and it is only recently that people have started using it in a derogatory way.

As early as the 1800s, the term was considered a derogatory one, so this really cannot in any way be blamed on political correctness, nor is it's derogatory usage only recent.

I must disagree with you Woodruff. It CAN be blamed on political correctness. Because until recently (talking maybe a decade or two) the "n" word was used and nobody complained. Then along came good ol' PC and the world went mad. So now people use it to be deliberately offensive. Can't you guys appreciate what I'm trying to say?

Whether you like it or not Political Control... sorry I mean "Correctness" has a lot to answer for.

[ronsizzle]

this is a lost cause people.

i think that some people are oversensitive, and have truly lost their minds.

[JoshyBoy]

this is a lost cause people.

i think that some people are oversensitive, and have truly lost their minds.

I agree hehe

[ronsizzle]

i read all 15 pages of this! i hope cc takes a stand to do nothing. also i hope they weed out people that are bad for the site quicker. if that includes me, then so be it.

but this is crazy.

this is a gaming site, where people get semi serious, and say things when they are pissed after they lose. racism isnt running rampant around here.

look at what owenshooter brings up as racism? and how he tries to make fun of OP for his response. which i thought was dead on.

[JoshyBoy]

Ronc has a point.

We're all just wasting our time on this pointless topic.

Consider this my last post in this thread.

[Timminz]

I think a fair number of people need to realize that this is not, "just another Owenshooter thread". He is NOT the member that started it, and he is far from the only member who feels the way he does. It's easy to latch on to one person's comments, and previous record, in an attempt at downplaying the whole topic, but in this case, that's missing the point entirely.

[Artimis]

It's not pointless, Jim set out to get some intelligent debate, which he got, unfortunately this thread was also deluged with bucket loads of trolling and thread derailment from the usual suspects. I hope the admins take on board the serious contributions, such as sourcing more applicable and better laid out tried and tested guidelines from other organisations.

On the subject of the scale of punishment, leave it exactly where it is. I'd love to see trolling, and purposeful thread derailing punished more harshly, but it won't happen because the mods need to give mild cases the benefit of the doubt for fear of punishing an innocent mistake. The scale of punishment is fine, if it's not broken, don't fix it!

[owenshooter]

On the subject of the scale of punishment, leave it exactly where it is. I'd love to see trolling, and purposeful thread derailing punished more harshly, but it won't happen because the mods need to give mild cases the benefit of the doubt for fear of punishing an innocent mistake. The scale of punishment is fine, if it's not broken, don't fix it!

no, that is the point, the scale of punishment is pretty much non-exitent. look at what occured in this thread, and how the member came back after a warning and post edit to declare "f*ck you" to me for saying he was racist for calling me nshooter. wow... look at the C&A thread where a member harassed another member for well over a week with racist/xenophobic/homophobic comments in game chat, pm's and wall posts. he received 24 hours for his actions. then the offender point dumped within a few days and was suspended from the site! so, break the bigotry guidelines and receive a sentence far less than the amount of time you harassed a person, point dump and you are dealt with harshly. the point is the guidelines are in place, they are just not enforced. again, i think it should go:

1. combined warning w/3 day vacation
2. one week vacation for second offense w/ final warning
3. perma-ban
4. if the member continues in live chat or game chat, site suspension

rarely is anyone given any sort of substantial punishment for violating the bigotry guidelines on this site, despite the boast of NO TOLERANCE. multiple people have posted in this thread how bigotry has impacted their time at CC. again, nice steps andy, i never thought i'd see this happen...-0

[mpjh]

Shut up Suzy. You're not helping.


And mpjh, sure, I promise not to call owen Mr. nshooter again. I now know he doesn't like it. But I can't promise not to accidentally piss off someone. It seriously is ridiculous to think that there was any racist meaning in what I wrote, and I'm honestly rather offended anyone would suggest that I would make racist comments or that there was anything racist in what I did write.

So in some ways, I feel like I deserve an apology myself, and that's part of why I'm reticent to make some big public one to owen.

\\

I apologize for thinking you had some class.

[xelabale]

So what is cc? Is it a place for revelry or a place for soberness - a bar or a creche - adult or child - wild west or conservative heartland?

cc needs to position itself clearly on a cline between 2 extremes and let everyone know where it stands, because everybody seems to have a different idea of what cc is. To a large extent i embrace that. It is wonderful that a site can be different things for different people, but it's at the edges where people clash, and clear definition is required. Ultimately - if the site owners have sense - it should be the users who decide that. I don't subscribe to a proscriptive methodology, prohibition NEVER works.

So as the users, we need to tell the owners where we want the site positioned. Of course they may have their own ideas about the direction it's headed. But as we are the customer base, we do have a voice, voices.

It would be nice if andy could set up some sort of questionnaire where people could express their points of view - in itself a difficult task to do. I work for a language school and if we didn't listen to our students we would soon lose all our customers. Questionnaires and 2 way communication are central policy and I don't see why the same model shouldn't be applied. Any feedback is good, and it would be even better if results were shared.

[owenshooter]

So what is cc? Is it a place for revelry or a place for soberness - a bar or a creche - adult or child - wild west or conservative heartland?

cc needs to position itself clearly on a cline between 2 extremes and let everyone know where it stands, because everybody seems to have a different idea of what cc is...

So as the users, we need to tell the owners where we want the site positioned. Of course they may have their own ideas about the direction it's headed. But as we are the customer base, we do have a voice, voices...

It would be nice if andy could set up some sort of questionnaire where people could express their points of view - in itself a difficult task to do. I work for a language school and if we didn't listen to our students we would soon lose all our customers. Questionnaires and 2 way communication are central policy and I don't see why the same model shouldn't be applied. Any feedback is good, and it would be even better if results were shared.

why is any of this necessary? the guidelines are clear, they are just not clearly enforced... CC has already stated it's position on bigotry, and you had the chance to read those guidelines before you ever posted in the forums. if chose to not read those guidelines or you disagreed with those guidelines, you had the choice to not post in the forums. here are the guidelines...

Subject: Community Guidelines

• In no circumstances is bigotry allowed.
  
  • Bigotry includes racism, aggressive homophobia, religion bashing or wishing violence on any minority group.
  • Bigotry takes into account historic events, emotional baggage and generally accepted associations with a term, phrase or intent - posting "White Power" in a thread has a history and is bigoted, posting "Green Power" makes you an environmentalist.

NOW, if you want to change the guidelines, than i agree with you that some sort of questionnaire or possibly a committee is necessary. however, the guidelines are in place, and the guidelines are clear. i understand all of your points, but i still think what is needed here is enforcement, as their is little to no significant enforcement as of yet...-0

[jiminski]

So what is cc? Is it a place for revelry or a place for soberness - a bar or a creche - adult or child - wild west or conservative heartland?

cc needs to position itself clearly on a cline between 2 extremes and let everyone know where it stands, because everybody seems to have a different idea of what cc is. To a large extent i embrace that. It is wonderful that a site can be different things for different people, but it's at the edges where people clash, and clear definition is required. Ultimately - if the site owners have sense - it should be the users who decide that. I don't subscribe to a proscriptive methodology, prohibition NEVER works.

So as the users, we need to tell the owners where we want the site positioned. Of course they may have their own ideas about the direction it's headed. But as we are the customer base, we do have a voice, voices.

It would be nice if andy could set up some sort of questionnaire where people could express their points of view - in itself a difficult task to do. I work for a language school and if we didn't listen to our students we would soon lose all our customers. Questionnaires and 2 way communication are central policy and I don't see why the same model shouldn't be applied. Any feedback is good, and it would be even better if results were shared.

I agree with much of that and the call not to censor the fun from here (heh not sure i am happy to put the decision on CC tone to the sensitive masses though.. we may end up not being able to fart during a RT game).

Here's a post i made in September 2007, in a much more racist period on CC as i remember. ( http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=27518&p=705670&hilit=Earl+grey#p705670 )
:

personally .. although i do like traditional Tea rooms and I thoroughly enjoy a nice pot of Earl Grey accompanied by a scone.. Given a permanent ultimatum i would chose a vibrant pub with all it's vices and limitations.

this place has many problems and some silly and offensive people who i see very little point to and who contribute little directly. How these extremists do contribute is by galvanising the majority into coming out against them. In the arena of public opinion the truth should always come out.

Without the sinner how can the Pious man judge himself.

Indeed without witnessing those with the most abhorrent views and behaviour all we end up with is a sterilized and stagnant pool of mediocrity, which bears no resemblance to the reality.
Worse than this, without vent: bias, prejudice and in a secular sense; evil, festers in a small way in all of us. We only exorcise that little piece of endemic evil by viewing it in it's most exaggerated form!

Yes that's all empty rhetoric too and it is an exaggeration, nay 'extreme' version of my belief.
there must be balance! Racism, for example, needs arbitration but i honestly feel that this site gets it just about right.
perhaps it needs a touch of fine tuning but not much!

please keep the filters out, please allow people to do their own policing ... afterall this kind of medium is one of the only places in which people can truly express a part of themselves without unnecessary inhibition.
This is a safe place where use of language does only have a cerebral impact .. when someone says they are going to 'f*ck your mother' or 'shit in eye' they really have no way of doing it! It is a statement purely born out of fiction, it has no tangible basis and should create only an ephemeral resonance.

I still agree with myself .. funnily enough, but i also think that there are behaviours at the extremities which are obviously flagrant.
In fact i would like less moderation for the sillier things (all subjective of course) not more. But in cases of almost universal distaste and incitement to hatred (broadly speaking this realy is only bigotry) that allows more time for incisive moderation on clear-cut misdemeanour.

[xelabale]

The guidelines are clearly not enforcible at the moment, and thus not enforced. they need to be clarified. My point reaches further than simply one aspect. We need to establish clearly the tone of the site, as I feel it's not clear right now. FW was removed, which signals a move away from toleration of flaming. But where is it moving too? Surely a clear sense of what the owners (and users) want can only be a good thing for everyone.

Simply saying "zero tolerance" is in practicality unenforceable, which leads to your problem and gives both sides an opportunity to get upset. Owenshooter says the rules are not enforced enough, others say they should be relaxed. As it stands cc can't really respond to either side constructively. Therefore a realistic, enforceable set of guidelines seems like a practical and fair solution.

[jiminski]

The guidelines are clearly not enforcible at the moment, and thus not enforced. they need to be clarified. My point reaches further than simply one aspect. We need to establish clearly the tone of the site, as I feel it's not clear right now. FW was removed, which signals a move away from toleration of flaming. But where is it moving too? Surely a clear sense of what the owners (and users) want can only be a good thing for everyone.

Simply saying "zero tolerance" is in practicality unenforceable, which leads to your problem and gives both sides an opportunity to get upset. Owenshooter says the rules are not enforced enough, others say they should be relaxed. As it stands cc can't really respond to either side constructively. Therefore a realistic, enforceable set of guidelines seems like a practical and fair solution.

I'll be honest, i am not even convinced that there is a revolutionary new movement or direction on CC. The Child friendly thing is a red-herring from what i can tell (and i have been mentioning it quite a lot in order to tell). From what i can see, it was just an excuse to placate over-sensitive adults.

They got rid of Flamewars .. but they'd been threatening that for years and it was a pre-chewed bone to throw to the shivering lapdogs.

I am hoping that very little will actually change and that in making a stand on the excesses of behaviour (Bigotry) it will allow a liberal and open atmosphere to be retained.

So, what is Bigotry?
Again, everyone knows that really! Due to universal understanding of that the existing guidelines are probably sufficient (for the dissenters who really do not get it, just ask yourself what the wimpy PC brigade would think of as unacceptable regarding discrimination and you will have the answer you already knew.)
When you make a written post, re-read it and consider its impact, you know full well that calling someone a "Homo Midget Golliwog" is unacceptable. Is it important that the person is in fact gay and black for it to be unacceptable? .. i don't think it can be the key issue, most of us have no idea who is at the other end of the Internet. What is important is that we all, deep down and without lying for arguments sake, know what the absolutes are.

At the margins it has to be more carefully handled.

As i said before, I think that if stronger punitive action is to be encouraged in clear-cut cases, it should be largely based upon reports made by the abused party alone. That would preclude 3rd parties (3rd party users or mods doing random checks...* ) with no idea of intent, from misunderstanding a joke about a Fjord between two Norwegians.
That will also safeguard language which has no intended target; point in case, my example above. We must not have a situation where i could be banned for using an example to show the worst excesses of language or we could discuss nothing. .. it is common sense stuff really.


*i am sure they realise now that the post report button is not the sharp and discriminating tool to be relied upon in this case ; )

[owenshooter]

As i said before, I think that if stronger punitive action is to be encouraged in clear-cut cases, it should be largely based upon reports made by the abused party alone. That would preclude 3rd parties (3rd party users or mods doing random checks...* ) with no idea of intent, from misunderstanding a joke about a Fjord between two Norwegians.
That will also safeguard language which has no intended target; point in case, my example above. We must not have a situation where i could be banned for using an example to show the worst excesses of language or we could discuss nothing. .. it is common sense stuff really.


*i am sure they realise now that the post report button is not the sharp and discriminating tool to be relied upon in this case ; )

i said this earlier, and thus i agree... reports on these sorts of things are continually in the C&A forum, so people are active in the reporting of bigotry towards them. however, it is usually met with the standard [warning] or "put them on ignore" response. bigotry is not something one moves easily on from, no matter what people think. i am personally not looking for the site to hire a Bigotry Moderator that flies about the forums and game chat throwing down justice. the current means or reporting are sufficient, the punishments just need to meet the offense. and a slap on the wrist is a joke. nice post jiminski...-0

[thegreekdog]

I have a couple of points for Andy:

(1) Perhaps CC should consider the use of certain words and/or terms to be a violation of community guidelines, no matter the context. For example, using the "n" word in any context is a violation. This would make it easier for the mods to police (i.e. X player used the "n" word in game chat, open and shut case). There would be no arguing over "Hey, I didn't mean it in a rascist context," or "But, I'm black," wouldn't hold any weight.

(2) Related to #1 above, I think that CC should refine its rules on rascism, bigotry, homophobia, and sexism to make clear what is and is not tolerated. I've found, in life, that the more clear the rules, the less likely one will attempt to break the rules. Compare "Rascism will not be tolerated" to "The phrase "Greek sheep-f*cker" will not be tolerated." It is easy to determine whether the second one is a violation versus the first one.

(3) Are the mods going to investigate whitestazn88 for anti-Semitism and homophobia? If not, should I do a report in C&A? He typed the "k" word and derogatorily referred to two players as gay. If there is one thing I cannot stand, it's a hypocrit, and I will report whitestanzn88 if required. Additionally, if we are assuming the "n" word is rascist in any context, I believe there have been numerous references to the word throughout this thread. They should probably be dealt with.

(4) Finally, and this has really been bothering me, attacking Muslims is not rascism or xenophobia. Islam is a religion, not a race or an ethnicity. I know religious intolerance is against the rules, but let's call it what it is please.

[Suzy1]

In all seriousness, let's be honest, white people using the "N" word are called racists. But no one uses the "N" word more than "African Americans" themselves!

And pray tell, where would you find this information to be actually true?

I live near New Orleans. I have been many other places and nowhere is that word used more by their own race than here. If you think that I would say this just to make a racial statement, you couldn't be more wrong. If you think this isn't true, come see for yourself.

[jiminski]

I have a couple of points for Andy:

(1) Perhaps CC should consider the use of certain words and/or terms to be a violation of community guidelines, no matter the context. For example, using the "n" word in any context is a violation. This would make it easier for the mods to police (i.e. X player used the "n" word in game chat, open and shut case). There would be no arguing over "Hey, I didn't mean it in a rascist context," or "But, I'm black," wouldn't hold any weight.

(2) Related to #1 above, I think that CC should refine its rules on rascism, bigotry, homophobia, and sexism to make clear what is and is not tolerated. I've found, in life, that the more clear the rules, the less likely one will attempt to break the rules. Compare "Rascism will not be tolerated" to "The phrase "Greek sheep-f*cker" will not be tolerated." It is easy to determine whether the second one is a violation versus the first one.

(3) Are the mods going to investigate whitestazn88 for anti-Semitism and homophobia? If not, should I do a report in C&A? He typed the "k" word and derogatorily referred to two players as gay. If there is one thing I cannot stand, it's a hypocrit, and I will report whitestanzn88 if required. Additionally, if we are assuming the "n" word is rascist in any context, I believe there have been numerous references to the word throughout this thread. They should probably be dealt with.

(4) Finally, and this has really been bothering me, attacking Muslims is not rascism or xenophobia. Islam is a religion, not a race or an ethnicity. I know religious intolerance is against the rules, but let's call it what it is please.

heheh i don't like point (1) as brushing everything under the carpet is not healthy and allows bigotry to fester unchecked. Point (2), people know when they are tailoring a sentence to be racist and as i said already, the complaint should come from the abused to avoid misunderstandings of intent.
Point (3) i'll ignore as i think this may be an intentional misinterpretation.

Regarding point (4), (perhaps the least important point, being as the Thread title has been changed to encompass all Bigotry) I think this is probably directed at me as i made the first mention of it, so i will answer...

...just to get rid of point (4) (so please let's not waste too much time on the semantics of this specific point), I think in the case of the term 'Muslim' and its racial connotation- it can be asserted as racism and specifically regarding the mentioned thread, which drew upon stereotypes to make it's points.
If we are talking about Muslim stereotypes they will largely, and i concede ignorantly, be based on one corner of the Muslim Nation. they will pertain to the 'Arab race' from the Middle East.
They will rarely pick on the white man in the American mid-West who sees Mohamed as a Great and Just philosopher, coming to his word in an intellectual pursuit which runs against the tide of public paranoia. No, the stereotype used by the bigot will be about suicide bombers dressed as sheiks, and brainwashed youths with hate of all things 'Just' and 'Free' and 'American'!

When you think Muslim do you think of two hundred million Malaysians or do you think of a guy from Saudi?

Anyway that is pure distraction.

[thegreekdog]

heheh i don't like points (1) and (2) as brushing everything under the carpet is not healthy and allows bigotry to fester unchecked.

What? I'm not sure I understand why "allowing bigotry to fester unchecked" relates to not allowing people to say bigotted terms. So, you're saying bigots need an outlet so let's give them CC?

Regarding point (4), (perhaps the least important point, being as the Thread title has been changed to encompass all Bigotry) I think this is probably directed at me as i made the first mention of it, so i will answer...

It's not important, just something that has personally bothered me. And I know a lot of white Muslims. And I know a lot of black Muslims. And I know Muslims who are neither white nor black. But that's not the point. Islam is a RELIGION, not a RACE.

Point (3) i'll ignore as i think this may be an intentional missinterpretation

By who?

Here, this may help -

ps. i hate kikes

That doesn't seem like a misinterpretation to me. Why is that phrase different than replacing the "k" word with the "n" word?

[jiminski]

heheh i don't like points (1) and (2) as brushing everything under the carpet is not healthy and allows bigotry to fester unchecked.

What? I'm not sure I understand why "allowing bigotry to fester unchecked" relates to not allowing people to say bigotted terms. So, you're saying bigots need an outlet so let's give them CC?
.....

what, you think banning me for saying that 'nigger' is unacceptable as a name directed at another user, is the sensible course to halting bigotry?
Come on tiger, that's just ill-conceived.

[thegreekdog]

what, you think banning me for saying that saying nigger is unacceptable as a term directed at another user is the sensible course to halting bigotry?
Come on tiger, that's just ill-conceived.

Why? Didn't owenshooter post that any use of the "n" word is rascist? That's why, let's just have a rule that says you can't use the word. That way, there would be no debate.

In any event, no little guy, I'm not saying banning you is the answer. I'm saying that if Andy is looking for ideas, that is my idea for a FUTURE rule (i.e. one that would be implemented after you used the term); erego, you wouldn't be banned (or even given a warning). People will get used to it.

Let me use another example - if I used the "n" word in any context at work, I'd be given a warning. That seems reasonable to me; why can't it be reasonable on this site?

I do think the dude that used the "k" word needs to be warned at least. There was no point to it apart from getting people like me riled up.

[jiminski]

what, you think banning me for saying that saying nigger is unacceptable as a term directed at another user is the sensible course to halting bigotry?
Come on tiger, that's just ill-conceived.

Why? Didn't owenshooter post that any use of the "n" word is rascist? That's why, let's just have a rule that says you can't use the word. That way, there would be no debate.

In any event, no little guy, I'm not saying banning you is the answer. I'm saying that if Andy is looking for ideas, that is my idea for a FUTURE rule (i.e. one that would be implemented after you used the term); erego, you wouldn't be banned (or even given a warning). People will get used to it.

Let me use another example - if I used the "n" word in any context at work, I'd be given a warning. That seems reasonable to me; why can't it be reasonable on this site?

I do think the dude that used the "k" word needs to be warned at least. There was no point to it apart from getting people like me riled up.

look, I'm not here to defend Whitesnakes intent or bellittle your interpretation, you two sort that our between you.

But your logic is flawed regarding the blanket banning of certain words is all. If we ban something it grows in power. If we can not discuss something analytically, as we can not even say the word, it lends it the gravitas of forbidden fruit and rebellion.

Far better to be able to say a word is unacceptable. Far better even to allow a person to say it without an asterisk, so that we can rebuke them and reinforce common modes of acceptable behaviour. Ignoring things is very rarely the best answer once we get past little school .. contrary to what my mum used to say.. the bully usually stops quicker if you show them the error of their ways rather than a deaf ear.

[thegreekdog]

But your logic is flawed regarding the blanket banning of certain words is all. If we ban something it grows in power. If we can not discuss something analytically, as we can not even say the word, it lends it the gravitas of forbidden fruit and rebellion.

Far better to be able to say a word is unacceptable. Far better even to allow a person to say it without an asterisk, so that we can rebuke them and reinforce common modes of acceptable behaviour. Ignoring things is very rarely the best answer once we get past little school .. contrary to what my mum used to say.. the bully usually stops quicker if you show them the error of their ways rather than a deaf ear.

Your point is a good one, and I don't disagree. However, perhaps using the phrase "the "n" word" is more appropriate than using the word itself. It's pretty easy to do. I'm not going to argue with owenshooter that the use of the actual "n" word isn't rascist. He's black, I'm not; that's his prerogative as to whether the word is rascist or not. I just think it's easier if, when discussing the rascism issue in a purely non-rascist context, that we use the phrase "the "n" word" instead of the actual word itself. Thereby, we can ban the term without banning discussion of the term.

I just think banning the term (1) makes it easier on the mods, (2) will take out subjectivity so that people won't get mad at owenshooter when they think he's spamming/trolling/whatever the heck they get mad about, and (3) people who are offended simply by the word don't have to see the word on this website any more.

[sam_levi_11]

You may have noticed a bit of a kerfuffle regarding racism on CC of late.
Mainly revolving around our token freedom fighter and man of colour Owenshooter...

I could care less about his race or anyone else for that matter. Owen is a douche-- black, white, yellow or purple.

But you, sir, are a douche. You goaded me and started an arguement over my sexuality saying immature things like, "but you like it up the ass" to everything i said and constantly had a go at me. I even reported you to wicked after it, and she did f*ck all. Prolly cos she was mental... Even Clapper was there, talking, yet chose to ignore it. The mods are pathtic on this site at times.

Therefor anything you say in this subject is null and void as you are a bigoted homophobe. I dont what me being bisexual has to do with you.

[jiminski]

But your logic is flawed regarding the blanket banning of certain words is all. If we ban something it grows in power. If we can not discuss something analytically, as we can not even say the word, it lends it the gravitas of forbidden fruit and rebellion.

Far better to be able to say a word is unacceptable. Far better even to allow a person to say it without an asterisk, so that we can rebuke them and reinforce common modes of acceptable behaviour. Ignoring things is very rarely the best answer once we get past little school .. contrary to what my mum used to say.. the bully usually stops quicker if you show them the error of their ways rather than a deaf ear.

Your point is a good one, and I don't disagree. However, perhaps using the phrase "the "n" word" is more appropriate than using the word itself. It's pretty easy to do. I'm not going to argue with owenshooter that the use of the actual "n" word isn't rascist. He's black, I'm not; that's his prerogative as to whether the word is rascist or not. I just think it's easier if, when discussing the rascism issue in a purely non-rascist context, that we use the phrase "the "n" word" instead of the actual word itself. Thereby, we can ban the term without banning discussion of the term.

I just think banning the term (1) makes it easier on the mods, (2) will take out subjectivity so that people won't get mad at owenshooter when they think he's spamming/trolling/whatever the heck they get mad about, and (3) people who are offended simply by the word don't have to see the word on this website any more.

Well Owen can speak for himself of course but I think he would say that, though he may have said it is racist in all contexts, he was referring to the grey area in which it is used within Black culture as a non pejorative term. He was not referring to using it as a word in a linguistic, moral analysis.

Now i think people who are offended just by a word, regardless of context, should not be pandered to as it is not healthy for the reasons i gave before.