Replies

My question is, does that then mean they would support her if she had said "I won't comment on Senator Obama because white people aren't allowed to use the word [N-word]." If not, why not?

Race is not a chosen behavior. Faggot is. Not all behaviors HAVE to be tolerated ( although the left would like to force some to be).

The point was not about criticism of behavior. It was about how the idea of Ann being in the right because she was fighting semantic totalitarianism is a non-starter. What if, for example, she had said, "Some say the country isn't ready for an N-word president, but I think we are. That president should not be that N-word Barack Obama, however, because despite the fact that he's a well-educated, articulate, intelligent, handsome, dedicated and pro-family N-word, his ideology overall is too far to the left for him to be our first N-word president."

Why couldn't she say that and just say she was using terms that are used by people of Obama's race to describe him? I haven't seen a single argument in her defense on this thread that wouldn't apply to it. If the word "faggot" applied to a guy who has been faithful to his wife for 29 years is something that will advance the Reagan Revolution, why not the N-word applied to a guy some people in the ghetto would describe as an N-word?

And what if she just dispensed with the N-word and said he was unqualified to be president because of his humongous Baby New Year ears? Would that have been good for conservatism and reinforced her point about semantic totalitarianism?