I agree with you, even when it i see the use of it as insensitive or disrespectfull.

I think the latter part of this thread highlights an important issue. There is so much focus on a single word without looking too deeply into the context or maybe intention is a better way of putting it. Personally, it's a word I don't use. When I see it used by others, context/intention is key. It's usually pretty easy to see if someone is saying it out of malice with evil intent or for some other reason. I personally think it is a dangerous word to use but it does seem to pop up in music, comedy, etc.

That said, here is the real issue. Get rid of the word completely. Problem solved? No. Racist behavior will continue to exist. Just saying the word doesn't automatically make you racist. Many people who never openly say the word are actually racist.

The biggest problem these days is the lack of discussion. Bad ideas should be ridiculed not forbidden because latter option tends to radicalize. If I could tell Sargon anything, it would be that his use of the words while not racist/bigoted, are distracting and not helpful. Now we are talking about and focusing on the wrong things. I'm far more concerned about people's action than their words. It also gives opposition and easy way to ignore many of the valid arguments he has made before and after by simply shouting "racist".

So enforcing your own terms of service is becoming a fascist? Man you really need to keep your definitions in check. That’s not only seriously wrong to state, but also disrespectful against everybody who had to endure true fascism.

Well see that is our disagreement there,for me this word has a different meaning on how it is said and for you it's about what race uses it in this case and it seems sargon used the N word that much to offend Nazi's, its dumb he used it and he can be called out for that ofcourse but in this context it does not make him racist.

I do not think a skincolour should keep on bearing the sins of the forefathers or the grudges of the forefather's and we do not need to see everyone that likes freedom of speech on these words as bad people because its not because they aprove the freedom that they condone the unrespectfull words used but there are other negatives we can use before directly going  to one of the biggest(racist) that make's the target to be viewed as a monster instead of a flawed person and doing this also makes the public blind to truth.

You will most likely dissagree with alot of my comment here but people that have a different view than you on this mostly are also very much against racism so do not let this thread dishearten you too much.

I think this is actually a really good point. First, don't be discouraged because people have different viewpoints or interpretations. I think most people are against racism and other forms of descrimimtation.

The really interesting thing about what Sargon was doing, albeit maybe not in the most constructive way, was to try and show the fallacy of the white nationalist's behavior. Essentially he was saying that they have branded and entire race of people with a word and an associated set of negative characteristics. The behavior that they don't like and have attributed to this group as a whole, they themselves are acting exactly the way they say that groups act. Therefore the word, based on their definition of characteristics, is applicable to them.

This is one of the biggest problems I have with identity politics. Any time you attribute individual characteristics to entire groups of people, it's folly. Judge individuals on individual actions. 

I think that Sargon was using the word in the context of the characteristics implied e.g. bad behavior, etc. He was essentially saying you are white people that are behaving poorly and doing the same things you say you don't like this other group doing so the name you give to that bad behavior is equally applicable to you. That is actually the only way it makes sense. If you look at that word as just a racial slur that includes everyone of a particular color, then calling the white supremacists that word doesn't make sense. He would just be saying you are white black people.

No no that's not how sargon thinks about that at all but you only use context partly for this cause his intention was to upset those racists with making them feel the same way as the reciever's of their hate to point out that it is offensive.

As much as i do agree that it was a bit senseless and not so much of a smart move,i cannot say this had racists intentions from Sargon .

Really i respect you trying to change how i look upon this but i had my whole life experience to think about it allready and i assure you i did my research and if i did see evil in people so easily i would have succumbed to depression long ago.

When you are selectively enforcing them, mainly along the lines of ideology, yes.  And those who have endured true fascism will be the first to warn others of the slow creep of fascism.  You don't wake up one day and find yourself in a fascist state.  It starts out slow and acceptable for a large group of people.  Usually taking down the "extremists."  But, they are extremists, so no one defends them.  Then, they slowly work towards the center.  But, those people in between didn't despise those viewed as extremists, or maybe just defended their right to speak, so the ones supporting these bannings say nothing, even liking them being taken out.  Then, they hit the middle.  This is usually when people actually start to get concerned, but may be too afraid of those in charge or the more extreme elements on their side to do anything.  Before you know it, it has spread to all sides of the political spectrum. 

Martin Niemoller's poem, slightly altered, works perfectly. 

First they came for the conspiracy theorists, but I did not speak out, for I wasn't a conspiracy theorist.
Then they came for the Conservatives, but I did not speak out, for I wasn't a Conservative.
Then they came for the Centrists, but I did not speak out, for I wasn't a Centrist.
Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out.

And if you think the future of fascism is just the government, and not the government plus big corporations that are in bed with them, you will never see it coming.

You're saying a Democracy can only exist if free speech is 100% guaranteed, once there is a little restriction in free speech every Democracy will inevitably fail. That's not true, we can set stops in between the two extrems. You're trapped in a all or nothing mentality but the reality works different. West Germany banned swastikas and other Nazi symbols. Did Germany became a Dictatorship? No, infect this bann or censorship helped Germany to became a funktioning democracy.

free speech is only one of several civil rights every human has and sometimes the different rights collide with each other and we have to find a compromise. Securing freedom of speech to 100% all the time will inevitably hurt other civil rights.

Show me the evidence. You can't make such a ridiculous claim without backing it up with evidence.