#478: - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nope totalitarianism refers to one person enforcing lawswith no input and is much different to a dictatorship. That said if the totalitarian leader eenforced complete free speech and no offence taken then that would still be totalitarianism. Stop trying to make out that use of an offensive word is extreme! I mean really, grow up. Offense isn't decided by those whouse it, iit's by those called it. There is no suitable use of the n word or any other. I say this because comments throughout this thread spoken as fact such as 'they're terrorists'  'they smell'  etc are often used with the p word which makes it offensive by association. Please also look through history and see our treatment of minorities and have some compassion and some forethought before you decide that you have the right to use a word and can use it in appropriate settings. When on earth are you using the n word and it's perfectly ok? Christ.

You can sit there for the rest of your boring life and say your not racist. But you're judged on your action so if you constantly have to reassure and accuse the opposition of extremism to justify yourself then you are. However you want to dance around the houses in your argument. You flit from one point to the next insisting no other is answering questions but your arguments all just become a complete joke when you raise this point. You've undone any work you had done by insisting the right to use the wordiu

#481: - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:  I might for example use the word nigger in debates such as this. I wouldn't use it in an offensive context as it would be bad manners. 'There is no suitable use of the 'n' word', that's  an extremely dogmatic and fascistic approach. Don't compare me with a few abusive bigots on here, although indeed a large proportion of your 'argument' consists of unreasoning abuse, such as unfounded and predictable accusations of racism, and attempted demonisation towards anyone not toeing the modern liberal line, instead of responding to the reasoned arguments posted. Explain how a totalitarian leader could 'enforce complete free speech' a ludicrous, self-contradictory statement. I've never tried to make out the use of an offensive word is extreme, I've done the diametric opposite and specifically said it isn't, and should only be frowned upon and possibly dealt with proportionately if used in an offensive context. All cultures and races have preyed upon one another at some time in history, what has that got to do with the existing natives of Britain? Offence isn't decided by the issuer or the recipient it is, or used to be, decided by a sensible, balanced, proportionate judgement by the relevant authorities. That has now been replaced by attempted state diktat and politicisation of those authorities. I haven't accused anyone of extremism and have directly responded to points raised.