I have a question. I recall in the 1980's there was talk of the "racially insensitive" language in Mark Twain. It was idiotic, as the whole point of the scenes some found offensive was to show that "N*gger Jim" was as human as anyone else, and that Huck was beginning to realize this. To think this book is racist because of a single word, when the book itself is so inherently anti-racist, is just insane. But ignoring that, during the debate in the 80's, the newscasters often used the entire name.

Today it would have to be "N-word Jim".

My question is this, when did "N*gger" become so very offensive that we can't say it (unless you are a rapper or black comedian)?

I do not ask because I don't think the term is offensive. I do. But I note that a whole host of other terms exist which are not treated so sensitively. Kike and hymie are said on the news without even an asterisk. Even Townhall shares this strange bias. Some words, such as n*gger and qu*er and f*ggot are not allowed, but kike and hymie get through filters without complaint.

So, why this strange double standard. Why is it "the n-word", but not "the k-word"?

Nor am I questioning only the acceptance of antisemitic slurs. Gook and chink have been said on television without even the asterisk fig leaf, yet they are every bit as offensive.

It just seems to me that we are somewhat selective in our outrage. For some reason we have deemed some words unacceptable, in the case of the n-word, not even allowing more than the first letter to be seen (again, unless you are a rapper or black comedian), but other slurs are allowed in their entirety "in the interest of public discourse".

I can think of only two explanations, neither one very flattering. Either the media cares more about the sensitivities of blacks and homosexuals than Jews and Asians. Or, they think that blacks are so hypersensitive that they cannot handle even the asterisk ridden version, while Asians and Jews are mature enough to handle their respective slurs.

Neither explanation reflects well on the media.

POSTSCRIPT

As I mentioned Townhall is just as guilty. Obviously some slurs (such as slope) cannot be blocked as the word has a perfectly normal meaning. On the other hand, qu*er has a perfectly normal meaning, yet Townhall will not allow me to use that word without the asterisk. Which is especially absurd, as the gay rights movement uses the term themselves. They can hardly claim offense at hearing a term they use themselves. Unless it is a gay equivalent of "rappers can use the n-word" rule.

 I have yet to fully test the filters, and I use few enough slurs that I have not had reason to do so, but look at the article above and you can see how many words that exist only as slurs make it through untouched.

I am normally quite deferential to Townhall, as I appreciate the space I have here for my blog, but in this case I think they are following the PC trends a bit too closely and applying a strange double standard in deciding what is acceptable and unacceptable.

ADDENDUM

Yes, I am aware that "chink" has a non-slur meaning as well as the racial slur meaning. On the other hand, non-racial uses of chink are no more common than non-sexual uses of the word qu*er. In fact, I fact I used to hear "qu*er the deal", before that word started to have the "homosexual" meaning more often than the "odd" meaning, much more often than I heard "chink in the armor", yet the filter will allow chink but not qu*er. So, just because a word has a non-insulting meaning it does not mean it will get through the filters, or else there would not be an asterisk in the middle of qu*er.

By the way, is it just me or does it seem odd that a word I can find in TV Guide (eg. Qu*er Eye for the Straight Guy) is filtered by Townhall? I know standards and practices censorship has weakened on TV, but it hasn't become that weak yet.

UPDATE

Let me add an additional note. Since Chris replied to this, I realized that what I said could be taken the wrong way, so allow me to be clear.

I am not arguing for eliminating filters. I know why sites attempt to maintain some standards and prevent the use of certain terms. I do not object to that. (Well, except for the banning of the perfectly good word q*eer, which I use often enough that banning it makes me annoyed.) I am simply asking why the list limits itself to certain groups and not to others. Antisemitic slurs are every bit as common as slurs against blacks or gays. Slurs against Asians may not be quite as common in this forum, true, but since there is no other meaning for "gook" I think its omission is peculiar.

But all of that is really beside the point. My intent was not to take Townhall to task, as I am quite fond of the site and have nothing but the best experiences with the Townhall staff with whom I have corresponded, but to point out that this absurd hierarchy of racism has so permeated our society that even a right leaning organization such as Townhall has institutionalized the same bias.

While everyone may accept, implicitly, that it is worse to say "n*gger" than "kike", my point is that there is no reason to think so. Society may have arbitrarily decided that "the n-word" is somehow "worse" than "hymie", but why? Why is "mick" OK, but "f*g" not? Or "dego" ok, but "qu*er" not?A racial slur is a racial slur. All of them are offensive tot he group insulted. (Just ask my wife how much she likes the word "dego".) We should either ban them all, or ban none of them. To say some are OK and some aren't is to make strange distinctions, the implications of which are actually every bit as racist as the slurs themselves.

NOTE: I know, I know, Italian and Irish (and Jew for that matter) are not really races, but cultures. So, read it as "racial or cultural slurs" if you want. That is too clumsy a wording to actually use, so I am just going to leave the article as it is.