User talk:138.247.99.204

Calling somebody a moron in the edit summary of your second edit is not a good idea. яεvεятεя σғ ωαη∂αℓιsм, ραтяσℓℓεя σғ ε∂ιтs, ΓУППЯ ・「ҭагк」・асђіεѵеϻԑηтѕ・тіме: 18:06, 31 October 2017 (UTC)



Even if I put unbiased language, such as I did in the "nigger" page, it still gets reverted. Why is that? 138.247.99.204 (talk) 19:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * For a few reasons LynnR may not get that ping so . How was the previous language "biased"? Christopher (talk) 19:41, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think it was necessarily biased, but it seemed like it was trying to reduce the strongly anti-racist sentiment of that sentence and it was a bit of a pointless change. Additionally, it was reverted once before by somebody who wasn't me, so adding it back was essentially starting an edit war. яεvεятεя σғ ωαη∂αℓιsм, ραтяσℓℓεя σғ ε∂ιтs, ΓУППЯ ・「ҭагк」・асђіεѵеϻԑηтѕ・тіме: 19:44, 31 October 2017 (UTC)



In my opinion, the term "racist" in that context assumes the word is intrinsically racist, and dismisses when the word is used in a manner that is endearing, satirical, descriptive, or joking. People give the word a lot of power, like the word has some magical abilities. Studies have been shown that exposure to this word can elicit more racist feelings, most likely due to how society acts when faced with this word.

In short, it is automatically assumed racist when it is used regardless of its context and place used. One single word can't classify someone as a racist. Period. Only their actions and feelings can. As Lynn said, it's sentiment. It doesn't belong on an unbiased review of the word. 138.247.97.94 (talk) 23:21, 31 October 2017 (UTC)