what do you mean no way? thats literally what the insult means. by definition. anybody who insults someone based on skin color thinks that skin color alone is enough to insult them. thats how it works.

If you call someone the n-word as an insult, you are saying that their skin color alone is worth insulting. That goes beyond them.

so how is it not just a very derogitory way of calling someone black or dark skinned? that is the purpose of the word. to point out someones skin color as an insult.

whats the definition of the n word?

you're* it is another word for a black person. its a very shitty racist word, but thats what it is. so when it is used as an insult, it is the same as saying that a person being black is enough for them to be insulted.

Calling OJ that is not just an insult to him, its perpetuating the use of a word with a history of terror, racism, and systematic abuse. Since it also technically is another word for a black person, you are also insulting him by calling him black. How is that okay?

The definition of tranny, everywhere you look, describes it as often [offensive or derogatory](https://i.imgur.com/bQAk6pC.png). Language evolves, its happened to leave tranny behind. I promise that saying "Trans person" wont be as hard if you just get used to it. Its the same reason you dont call people of color "coloreds" anymore. Its not hard to adapt.

Well, considering a trans person is and always was the gender they identify with, you would call Caitlyn she no matter what point in time you were refering to. Imagine it as if Caitlyn was always a woman but was just born into a male body.

If you think misgendering or deadnaming a trans person is an funny "insult" to them, [this comment](https://i.imgur.com/BpZbdoZ.png) should clarify why it isnt.

Im queer, I used to call myself a slur sometimes too. I dont now. Its not hard.

maybe instead of complaining that you cant say the word tranny, just dont say the word tranny. its a slur. why is that so hard for you?

I did answer the question, you cant know their Ideology based on one opinion. Someone thinking there is a Jewish agenda is not the same as someone just hating jews.

I asked first, and he responded with a question, so he should respond to me first. Its impossible to know if they have Nazi ideals based on them just "hating Jews." Thats entirely irrelevant to what I asked.

I agree you probably would have gotten downvoted, but I dont think you would have been banned or censored. I saw the hostile ban message they left you, and it was unwarranted that they would assume you're young and make the school shooter joke. It isnt justified how they responded, but I think the ban wasnt censorship.

"somewhat" rudely is a bit of an understatement. Sure, you were right, but from the moderaters point of view, you really werent contributing to the dicussion in a constructive way. As someone with experience in forum moderation, when people post non constructive comments like that, you tend to think that person wont be a good contributor to discussion within your community. I dont think it was fair for them to outright ban you if this was your first response like that (i dont know if it was). But if you look at this from their perspective, you have someone who replied to a post by being snarky to the OP, and then calling both sides idiots. Would you let that person just keep going about your subreddit, and just hope it was a one time thing, even though more often than not, people who respond that way do it to many posts in the same subreddit? I'm not saying you were going around replying to people like this, but from a moderators point of view, they dont know if you would or wouldnt keep acting like that, so they chose to not take a risk, and just go on with a ban. Also, one last thing, im almost certain that you wouldnt be banned if you had just said "Well, its not a terror tactic just because it was German and used by Nazi's, its just a war strategy" or something like that.