I like to think that there's a difference between using racist language and simply saying words with a racist connotation. Consider the following hypothetical post:
'Mark Twain's classic Huckleberry Finn contains 219 uses of [the n-word], which means Twain was a filthy, degenerate [n-word] lover.'
The first clause is a simple statement of a literary fact and is clearly not using the word as a slur. I don't think it can be argued that the second clause is so innocuous.
This is the chief source of my issue with the rule as it stands, but I don't see any way round it.
Boru
'Mark Twain's classic Huckleberry Finn contains 219 uses of [the n-word], which means Twain was a filthy, degenerate [n-word] lover.'
The first clause is a simple statement of a literary fact and is clearly not using the word as a slur. I don't think it can be argued that the second clause is so innocuous.
This is the chief source of my issue with the rule as it stands, but I don't see any way round it.
Boru
‘I can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax
