I didn't. But I will when it's appropriate because it's just a word. It's not magic.

Because there was a process with which the word became wrong that encompassed its use and its context. For instance with the word 'retarded'. Coincidentally enough, this word originated as the polite way to refer to those with mental deficiencies. It was offered as a substitute to what were considered offensive…

I don't know what I think about his use of the word yet. I'm trying to evaluate the outrage that has occurred. I don't yet understand it enough to come to my own opinion as to what he did. So far, I don't see it. But that's why I've been asking and why I've been pushing. I truly want to understand so I can decide as…

I never said you were a loser or unintelligent. My sincerest apology if I gave that impression.

but that brings me to my first question. What did he do wrong other than use the word, because simple use is not wrong?

That's horrible. I would say it around you in the appropriate context and if you tried to be unpleasant about it you would be in the wrong.

I don't expect you to completely change your mind and agree. I was just recommending that you use this time you spent wisely by meditating on the arguments, understanding them fully, then adjusting either your position or your defending argument accordingly. You know, the point of having intelligent conversations.

Is your argument that only a subjugated people can offend others without responsibility for the offense? Is it aggressive to wear an American flag pin to a Communist meeting or vice versa? It just doesn't seem that your argument is clear here.

But the process of condemnation is the same. In the past, certain words and subjects were considered absolutely taboo. They were not to be discussed in any context because to do so was to offend. It seems the 'n-word' is a throwback to that mentality. And it has become emblematic of why we can't talk about race fully…

Then you haven't been striving to understand what I'm saying. Please think on some of my points if for no other reason than to make your own arguments stronger in the future.

You're saying that it's ok to persecute the innocent. That is not sensible.

One doesn't exclude the other.

So if a person wears a gay pride pin to a place that he knows that others will find it offensive, is he being an aggressor or is he only refusing to keep his point of view to himself?

As I have done for you, if you'll notice. It's not that you are right and I am wrong. I think I've illustrated rather clearly that you are not completely in the right in your position here.

But in the case we are discussing, Maher's, it was in a context of comedy yet the outrage is tremendous. If it was a poor joke, that wouldn't inspire this outrage. It's the fact that he used a forbidden word, just like Lenny Bruce was criticized for using the word, 'fuck' because the word is ALWAYS offensive. We feel…

Your argument says that even if you are innocent of any malice, be prepared to face malice in return because of the social acceptance that that word allows hostility. It's not a sensible argument.

It wasn't a weapon in Huckleberry Finn. It wasn't a weapon in 70s comedy acts ( a lot of them.) It wasn't a weapon when it was used by Richard Pryor when he renounced his usage of it. It's not just a weapon, it's a historical artifact. To think that it's a weapon every time it's pulled out is, again, replacing mature…

It seems that that's a recipe for looking for a fight rather than looking for understanding.

And that's how it's a weapon. Rather than think about what someone is saying, the mere usage brands someone as something that they may not be. The practice replaces thought with reflex.

Yep. That's his game.