<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
</head>
<body>
<div id="answer-12064" class="answer deleted-answer" data-answerid="12064" itemprop="suggestedAnswer" itemscope="" itemtype="http://schema.org/Answer">
<input type="hidden" id="12064-only-allow-inform-moderator-flagging" value="true">
<div class="post-layout">
<div class="votecell post-layout--left">
<div class="js-voting-container grid fd-column ai-stretch gs4 fc-black-200" data-post-id="12064">
<button class="js-vote-up-btn grid--cell s-btn s-btn__unset c-pointer" title="This answer is useful" aria-pressed="false" aria-label="up vote" data-selected-classes="fc-theme-primary"><svg aria-hidden="true" class="svg-icon m0 iconArrowUpLg" width="36" height="36" viewBox="0 0 36 36"><path d="M2 26h32L18 10z"></path></svg></button>
<div class="js-vote-count grid--cell fc-black-500 fs-title grid fd-column ai-center" itemprop="upvoteCount" data-value="-1">-1</div>
<button class="js-vote-down-btn grid--cell s-btn s-btn__unset c-pointer" title="This answer is not useful" aria-pressed="false" aria-label="down vote" data-selected-classes="fc-theme-primary"><svg aria-hidden="true" class="svg-icon m0 iconArrowDownLg" width="36" height="36" viewBox="0 0 36 36"><path d="M2 10h32L18 26z"></path></svg></button>
<div class="js-accepted-answer-indicator grid--item fc-green-500 ta-center p4 d-none" title="loading when this answer was accepted..." tabindex="0" role="note" aria-label="accepted"><svg aria-hidden="true" class="svg-icon iconCheckmarkLg" width="36" height="36" viewBox="0 0 36 36"><path d="M6 14l8 8L30 6v8L14 30l-8-8z"></path></svg></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="answercell post-layout--right">
<div class="post-text" itemprop="text">
<p>TLDR;</p>
<hr>
<p>If you insist on censoring content, specifically "colored", you need to realize that the term "black" is "offensive" to a substantial number of people as well, for good reason. Concurrently, the term "black" has a meaning that cannot be placed into words <em>spelled</em> on paper <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdmPZNipnp4" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Stop Calling Yourself Black!</a> (an example of the varied interpretations of the term). You would need to ask that individual what "black" means to them to get the answer from the primary source, since the term can mean different things to different people. The same holds true for <em>any</em> label applied to more than one person, that is, a group of human beings.</p>
<p>The term "black", as arbitrarily applied to individuals, is the source of vast confusion, or a source of the universe.</p>
<p>In the U.S., the term "race" is not defined by any Public Law enacted by the United States Congress <a href="https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/30267/is-the-term-race-defined-by-public-law-enacted-by-congress-of-the-united-state">Is the term “race” defined by Public Law enacted by Congress of the United States</a>.</p>
<p>The U.S. Census Bureau officially defines the term "black or African American", importantly, for those familiar with law, <em>without any statutory basis</em>.</p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Black or African American</strong> – A person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Source: <a href="https://www.census.gov/topics/population/race/about.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">U.S. Census Bureau - About Race</a></p>
<p>There are several issues with that definition. The first issue is that the definition differs from the other <em>four</em> (for a total of five) official definitions of "race" in the document, which all begin the preamble </p>
<blockquote>
<p>A person having origins in any of the original peoples</p>
</blockquote>
<p>though, not the term "black or African American". </p>
<p>The second - and most glaring <em>deliberate</em> attempt to confuse people is the arbitrary invention of an unknown number of so-called</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Black racial groups of Africa</p>
</blockquote>
<p>which do not exist outside of that document.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I actually did not employ that reason: I VTC'd because the question
called for opinions. The problem is that the SE machine does not
report all of the reasons, it gives the main or first reason (I think
there's some majority-rules thing). The revised / later question was a
fact question and could be answered. <strong>There is no theory (in any
discipline) of the number of black racial groups in Africa, so
precision or even reasonable approximation is impossible.</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>which makes it clear that in the United States the term "black" has no definitive meaning. "black" is not a nationality. The term is a legal fiction. Compare the definition of "White", which includes the fictional "North Africa" and the military, geopolitical term "Middle East" as the "origin" of "White" "race". </p>
<p>Though again, "race" is not defined by any underlying statute. </p>
<p>Thus there is the case of an administrative agency, the U.S. Census Bureau, promulgating adminstrative rules <em>without any statutory authority</em> pursuant to any Public Law enacted by U.S. Congress which provides any definitions of the core terms used: "race" and "black". As there are no <em>"black racial groups of Africa"</em>. </p>
<ul>
<li><p>Where are those "black racial groups" found on this planet, in Africa? Answer: They cannot be found because those groups were invented by the U.S. Census Bureau and do not exist in the physical world.</p></li>
<li><p>How many of those "black racial groups" exist? Answer: None: 0.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>Any individual who <em>self-indentifies</em> as "black" or "African American" has some serious issues when asked what that terms official means. </p>
<p>An individual can <em>self-identify</em> as one or more "race", or no "race" whatsoever</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The 1997 OMB standards permit the reporting of more than one race. <strong>An
individual’s response to the race question is based upon
self-identification.</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>This user does not <em>self-identify</em> with any so-called "race" or "ethnicity", thus any arbitrary political classification SE user decides to label this user as could be considered to be "offensive". However, this user cannot be "offended", it is a moot point from that perspective. The reason for this answer is to illuminate, where possible, and to repudiate the efforts to endorse censorship for individual emotional reasons that have nothing to do with scientific analysis of what is called the English language and its usage. </p>
<p>That is, substitute objective analysis for contrived emotional responses that are in-effect political advertisements for their own acceptance of any de facto political classification schemes. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.timeslive.co.za/news/world/2018-10-29-black-teen-identifies-with-kkk-says-white-is-right/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Black teen identifies with KKK, says 'white is right' Source: timeslive.co.za</a></p>
<blockquote>
<p>During the interview with Dr Phil, Treasure explained: "I know I'm a
Caucasian because when I wake up in the morning, I just have such a
great life. My hair is so perfect. my skin is not ugly and I'm not
fat, which is also a really African-American thing. So, like, I'm just
nowhere near like them."</p>
<p>Treasure's mother Monique and her brother Kendal said they wrote to Dr
Phil hoping his psychological expertise would help Treasure deal with
her hatred of black people. Dr Phil's audience struggled to contain
their shock as Treasure went on to say that it felt good to put black
people down. "I identify with the Ku Klux Klan because the way they
believe is just so smart. White is right."</p>
</blockquote>
<p><a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/R5nhz.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/R5nhz.jpg" alt="enter image description here"></a></p>
<p><a href="https://www.today.com/news/rachel-dolezal-i-don-t-identify-african-american-i-identify-t109654" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Rachel Dolezal: 'I don't identify as African-American, I identify as black' Source: today.com</a> </p>
<p><a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/FaffZ.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/FaffZ.jpg" alt="enter image description here"></a></p>
<p>and recently in the U.S. there was an official "some other race", <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/the-rise-of-the-others/497690/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">The Rise of the American 'Others': An increasing number of respondents are checking “Some Other Race” on U.S. Census forms, forcing officials to rethink current racial categories.. Source: The Atlantic</a></p>
<p>No "black" people exist in Germany. <a href="https://qz.com/1078032/can-germany-combat-inequality-when-it-has-no-data-on-race/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Statistically speaking, black people in Germany don’t exist Source: qz.com</a></p>
<blockquote>
<p>Germany doesn’t see race—or at least it pretends not to. Racial
categories that are commonplace in the US and UK—such as white, black,
and Asian—don’t exist in Germany. The government doesn’t see any need
to measure the number of ethnic minorities in certain schools,
universities, and jobs, because it doesn’t want to divide its
citizens. The prevailing argument, which holds in much of Western
Europe, is “if you don’t want to create racism, you have to avoid
using categories,” says Simon Patrick, a senior researcher at the
National Institute for Demographic Studies. Everyone is German, the
thinking goes, and should be treated the same across the board.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>France no longer uses the political classification scheme "race" to arbitrarily group individuals <a href="https://qz.com/1316951/french-mps-removed-the-word-race-from-the-countrys-constitution/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">France replaced the word “race” with “sex” in its constitution Source: qz.com</a></p>
<blockquote>
<p>French MPs on both the left and the right on Wednesday voted to remove
the word “race” from the constitution. They argued that since race is
a made-up social construct, it doesn’t exist and the word should
therefore be taken out.</p>
</blockquote>
<p></p><p></p>
<p>Continuing with the answer to the Meta Law question</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Directive 15 is not based on science, so you'd just get bloviative answers ranging
from 1 to 1000 (maybe more). The rationale behind the wording is to
exclude white South Africans and North African Arab / Berber people,
who are slotted elsewhere -- also to exclude non-African blacks from
India etc.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>"race" is not based on any science, biology or genetics</p>
<p><a href="https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/04/race-genetics-science-africa/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">There’s No Scientific Basis for Race—It's a Made-Up Label: It's been used to define and separate people for millennia. But the concept of race is not grounded in genetics. Source: National Geographic</a></p>
<blockquote>
<p>In June 2000, when the results were announced at a White House
ceremony, Craig Venter, a pioneer of DNA sequencing, observed, <strong>“The
concept of race has no genetic or scientific basis.”</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>The <a href="https://www.americananthro.org/ConnectWithAAA/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=1665&navItemNumber=586" rel="nofollow noreferrer">American Anthropological Association</a> (<em>"The American Anthropological Association is <strong>the world’s largest association for professional anthropologists, with more than 10,000 members.</strong>"</em>) published <a href="https://www.americananthro.org/ConnectWithAAA/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=2583" rel="nofollow noreferrer">AAA Statement on Race Source: American Anthropological Association</a> on <strong>May 17, 1998</strong> (over 20 years ago)</p>
<blockquote>
<p>From its inception, this modern concept of "race" was modeled after an
ancient theorem of the Great Chain of Being, which posited natural
categories on a hierarchy established by God or nature. <strong>Thus "race"
was a mode of classification linked specifically to peoples in the
colonial situation. It subsumed a growing ideology of inequality
devised to rationalize European attitudes and treatment of the
conquered and enslaved peoples. Proponents of slavery in particular
during the 19th century used "race" to justify the retention of
slavery.</strong> The ideology magnified the differences among Europeans,
Africans, and Indians, <strong>established a rigid hierarchy of socially
exclusive categories underscored and bolstered unequal rank and status
differences, and provided the rationalization that the inequality was
natural or God-given.</strong> The different physical traits of
African-Americans and Indians became markers or symbols of their
status differences.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>...</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Ultimately "race" as an ideology about human differences was
subsequently spread to other areas of the world. It became a strategy
for dividing, ranking, and controlling colonized people used by
colonial powers everywhere.</p>
<p>But it was not limited to the colonial situation. <strong>In the latter part
of the 19th century it was employed by Europeans to rank one another
and to justify social, economic, and political inequalities among
their peoples.</strong> During World War II, the Nazis under Adolf Hitler
enjoined the expanded ideology of "race" and "racial" differences and
took them to a logical end: the extermination of 11 million people of
"inferior races" (e.g., Jews, Gypsies, Africans, homosexuals, and so
forth) and other unspeakable brutalities of the Holocaust.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>...</p>
<blockquote>
<p>How people have been accepted and treated within the context of a
given society or culture has a direct impact on how they perform in
that society. <strong>The "racial" worldview was invented to assign some
groups to perpetual low status, while others were permitted access to
privilege, power, and wealth. The tragedy in the United States has
been that the policies and practices stemming from this worldview
succeeded all too well in constructing unequal populations among
Europeans, Native Americans, and peoples of African descent.</strong> Given
what we know about the capacity of normal humans to achieve and
function within any culture, we conclude that present-day inequalities
between so-called "racial" groups are not consequences of their
biological inheritance but products of historical and contemporary
social, economic, educational, and political circumstances.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>If any of you ELU users cannot definitively state the precise number of "Black racial groups of Africa" then you need to stop using that term too. Else, you will be offending people who are officially classified as belongs to "racial groups" that do not exist.</p>
<p>If you insist on stating that "colored" is "offensive" then use of <em>any</em> social or political classification scheme is "offensive", including "I am white", which is a political statement, and a powerful one, as the religion of <em>self-identifying</em> as "white" is the most powerful military, merchant, geopolitical organization on this planet, right now. </p>
<p>So, if "colored" is "offensive" to you, referring to yourself as "white", can be equally "offensive" to others, as to them, "white" might simple refer to the geopolitical, military organization "white race"; historically, conquest.</p>
<p>Similarly, when <em>you</em> say "I am" "Jew", "Jewish", "[X]-sexual", and so forth, some humans, this human, views those purported groups or religions as purely political organizations; political organizations exist to further the <em>interests</em> of their <em>members</em>. Keep it to yourself. </p>
<p>What you fail to realize is that the term "colored" (not to be confused with the "colored" classification scheme in South Africa) is no different than "black" or "African American". They are <em>not mandatory</em>. Not every one buys in to that fraud. </p>
<p>Am not a member of <em>any</em> of <em>your</em> institutions and reject <em>your</em> classification schemes, thus, if SE users endorse a <em>policy</em> of arbitrarily </p>
<p>If "colored" is "offensive", "white" is "offensive".</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Colored is an ethnic descriptor historically used in the United States
and the United Kingdom. In the US, the term initially denoted
non-"white" individuals generally.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>due to the fact that "white" individuals created the term "colored" for the express purpose of dominating and mistreating non-"white" and "white" people during the so-called "colonial" period (where "White-woman" first appears in colonial jurisprudence) by military invasion and conquest over both other "white" people by "white" ("people", "race", etc.), euphemistically and in glory of victory over sovereign nations whose land was taken by force (for example, the Indian Removal Act of 1830; historically, known as "Trail of Tears"), referred to as "settlers" (you cannot be a "settler" in western academia and literature unless you at some point are referred to as "white"), it only makes sense to be even more "offended" by use of the term "white". </p>
<p>Of course, "white" people think "white" people are great! As "colored" people in South Africa think "colored" people are great! "[take your pick]sexual/gender" people think "[take your pick]sexual/gender" people are great! So on and so forth.</p>
<p>Focus on the facts. Not every one can be "offended", which is an emotional reaction; a personal opinion. Keep it to yourself. </p>
<p>Also, since do not practice any Abrahamic-based, or other organized "religion", do not <em>beleive</em> in <em>your</em> "god"; or the <em>stories</em> in your "Bible", "Qu'ran", "Torah"; "Scientology"; etc., those too, are merely political organizations. </p>
<p>Taking it a step further, your nationality, symbols, or any other <em>belief</em> you have is of no consequence either. </p>
<p>Deals with the facts at questions and answer, not beliefs. </p>
<p>Deal with your own individual emotional <em>reaction</em> to questions and answers. Keep it to yourself. </p>
<p>There is big difference between repudiating claims with facts and repudiating claims with emotions.</p>
<p>As to use of what you people call "the N word", that is the same principle. Some people <em>self-identify</em> as <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigga" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Nigga Source: Wikipedia</a></p>
<blockquote>
<p>Nigga is a colloquial term used in African-American Vernacular English
that began as an eye dialect form of the word nigger, an ethnic slur
against black people. In some dialects of English, the word is
pronounced the same as nigger in non-rhotic speech.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>just like some people self-identify as "Jew". There is no difference.</p>
<p>The irony is that <em>one</em> of the alleged origins of "Nigga" is "Nigger". So so-called "White" people create what they intend to be a derogatory term, certain individuals learn to <em>re</em>-define the term for their own purposes and usage, and now "white" and "some other race", etc. people say "Don't use the 'N' word". Because those individuals took <em>control</em> of the word?</p>
<p>You do not own the rights to or usage of the word "Nigga". </p>
<p>However, compare the term "anti-Semitic". <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Semetic Source: Wikipedia</a> are languages</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Semitic most commonly refers to the Semitic languages, a name used
since the 1770s to refer to the language family currently present in
West Asia, North and East Africa, and Malta</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Thus, when an individual who was not indoctrinated into any organized or other religion asks how can that term be reconciled with "anti-Semitic", the response is essentially that individuals who <em>self-identify</em> as "Jew" or "Jewish" took <em>control</em> of the term <a href="https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/38275/why-do-some-people-believe-that-antisemiticism-means-hostility-to-prejudice-or">Why do some people believe that antisemiticism means hostility to, prejudice, or discrimination exclusively against Jews? [closed]</a>, as if every individual has no accept that equivocation. No one is telling "Jewish" people that their use of "anti-Semiticism" as referring exclusively to individuals who <em>self-identify</em> as "Jew" does not make sense. </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Antisemitism <em>always</em> means hostility against Jews. Attempts to
redefine it are just attempts to whitewash or excuse antisemitism.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Similarly, because view any and all religion as an individual political choice, answers the question <a href="https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/35178/what-does-farrakhan-mean-by-false-jews">What does Farrakhan mean by “false Jews”?</a>, citing the primary source. The OP of the question voted to delete the question. Again, makes no sense. "Moderator" deleted the <a href="https://gist.githubusercontent.com/guest271314/ba0a80bc96b57a36fb6f40e116b4cb8a/raw/96d1bc65f23084255ad05882bfbef1a22e4828ab/answer-to-what-does-farrakhan-mean-by-false-jews.txt" rel="nofollow noreferrer">answer</a> to question with reason given at <a href="https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/35178/what-does-farrakhan-mean-by-false-jews/38265#comment146333_38265">comment</a></p>
<blockquote>
<p>Deleted because the first three paragraphs of this answer are
discriminating everyone who practices a religion by reducing their
faith to merely a political organisation. – Philipp♦ Jan 23 at 16:04</p>
</blockquote>
<p>which actually makes the extraordinary claim that "discriminating" was taking place for making an objective observation as to the historical origin and activities of religions, without exception. </p>
<p>The reason cited for the deletion appear to imply that an individual <strong>must</strong>
<em>believe</em> in an individuals religion as fact. That religion cannot be examined objectively. Similar to the subject matter at this question. That "race" and terms used by people to describe each other hurts peoples' feelings. Well, if one were to based whether content should be "edited" or "deleted" or not, every copy of the "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Dred Scott Source: Wikipedia</a>" case (<em>Scott v. Sandford</em>, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857))</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The question is simply this: Can a negro, whose ancestors were
imported into this country, and sold as slaves, become a member of the
political community formed and brought into existence by the
Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all
of the rights, and privileges, and immunities, guarantied [sic] by
that instrument to the citizen?</p>
<p>— <em>Dred Scott v. Sandford</em>, 60 U.S. at 403.</p>
<p>We think [...] that [black people] are not included, and were not
intended to be included, under the word "citizens" in the
Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and
privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens
of the United States. On the contrary, they were at that time
considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings who had been
subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet
remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges
but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose
to grant them.</p>
<p>— Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. at 404–05.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>should be burned, for the clarity of the intent might be "offensive" to some people, though those are the facts. However, that is not in isolation; the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Removal_Act" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Indian Removal Act of 1830 Source: Wikipedia</a> </p>
<blockquote>
<p>The Act was strongly supported by southern and northeast populations,
with much resistance from native tribes and the Whig Party. The
Cherokee worked together to stop this relocation, but were
unsuccessful; they were eventually forcibly removed by the United
States government in a march to the west that later became known as
the Trail of Tears.</p>
<p>...</p>
<p>This acculturation was originally proposed by George Washington and
was well under way among the Cherokee and Choctaw by the turn of the
19th century.<a href="https://qz.com/1078032/can-germany-combat-inequality-when-it-has-no-data-on-race/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">9</a> In an effort to assimilate with American culture,
Indians were encouraged to "convert to Christianity; learn to speak
and read English; and adopt European-style economic practices such as
the individual ownership of land and other property (including, in
some instances, the ownership of African slaves)."</p>
</blockquote>
<p>should be purged from every library as well, as well as every book or question or answer which contains the romanticized term "settler", which could also be considered "offensive" as some individual or group of individuals might find the facts of the matter historically means that those "settlers" occupy land of sovereign nations on Turtle Island defeated by military campaigns of invaders.</p>
<p>"Jesus Christ" is "offensive" to some, SE has a "Christianity" site. So what? You cannot say deny them that natural right; that is equivalent to Stack Exchange changing the logo at Stack Overflow to reflect their own political affiliation, and Stack Exchange stands by that decision, though they are the exception, making the concept of "the rules" absurd, where management, or "trusted user", or decides to promote their politics by locking, deleting, closing, content. Though not ever user was thrilled by that political advertisement at their expense. <a href="https://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/342940/">We'll always endeavor to do what's right. We'll try to do It better next time</a></p>
<blockquote>
<p>After <a href="https://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/297908/1529630">all</a> <a href="https://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/298007/1529630">the</a> <a href="https://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/298004/1529630">mess</a> caused by <a href="https://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/297859/1529630">changing the logo</a>
just because Joel is homosexual, I thought the team would have learned
the lesson that <strong>it's better to avoid political matters on Stack
Overflow</strong>. That question was properly locked with this message:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>This question exists because it has historical significance, but it is
not considered a good, on-topic question for this site, so please do
not use it as evidence that you can ask similar questions here.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>So when I saw <a href="https://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/342440">the outrageous question</a> I was surprised. While I
somewhat agreed with the contents, it was completely out-of-place.</p>
<p>At first I refrained from voting, I wanted to see how it would turn
out before acting. But there was <a href="https://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/342480/1529630">a great consensus</a> from the
community that it <strong>needed to be closed</strong>. Surprisingly, various Stack
Overflow employees kept <a href="https://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/342480/1529630">abusing their binding votes</a> to reopen
the question against the will of the community.</p>
<p>Basically, <strong>Joel violates the policies</strong> of the site because he is
the CEO, and his team enforces his view. Some elected moderators
disagreed with the reopening, but I guess they were too afraid that
their powers <a href="https://scifi.meta.stackexchange.com/q/7315">would be revoked</a> if they used their binding votes
to close or lock.</p>
<p>So it turns out all the "we believe in community moderation" and
similar messages were just bullshit, a carrot to attract users so that
the company can make more money. <strong>This destroyed all sense of
community</strong> I had. <strong>I no longer knew what I was doing here</strong>, so I
logged out on all devices, removed all links to Stack Overflow from my
browser's newpage, and decided to refrain from contributing to to the
community.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><a href="https://meta.stackoverflow.com/users/103167/ben-voigt">https://meta.stackoverflow.com/users/103167/ben-voigt</a></p>
<blockquote>
<p>Since Stack Exchange has effectively turned my profile page into a
political platform without my foreknowledge or consent, I feel
obligated to share my own views:</p>
</blockquote>
<p></p><p></p>
<p><a href="https://politics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3777/what-happened-to-the-accepted-answer-at-why-is-a-border-wall-such-a-polarising-i#comment9259_3782">https://politics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3777/what-happened-to-the-accepted-answer-at-why-is-a-border-wall-such-a-polarising-i#comment9259_3782</a></p>
<blockquote>
<p>@guest271314 - shortest answer to this questions seems to be some
people have been offended by it. My answer to this question has been
deleted too, apparently because I un-edited an edit to my answer
singling out one of the sources ans white-nationalist organization
based on SPLC assesment based on 4 comments of it's president and
other values. Unfortunately that's how it works: enough people don't
like the answer, they can get rid of it virtually on a whim, without
any way to appeal it. That's fine, but it simply means I'm deleting my
SE Politics account in 72 hrs (give or take). – user10424 Jan 21 at
12:43</p>
</blockquote>
<p>If you take <em>your emotions</em> out of the question and answer format that SE <em>claims</em> to be, especially This site <em>claims</em> to be about "English Language & Usage". the title of the site is not prefixed with "<em>Non-"offensive</em> English Language & Usage" as that would be an absurd goal, and is simply not possible. </p>
<p>When does you censorship end? Where every user is made "happy" by at times harsh facts? </p>
<p>Don't be hypocrites. If you state "colored" is "offensive", "black", "white", "asian", "some other race", "mexican", "lgbt", "illegal alien" and any other term you get upset about etc., are also "offensive". </p>
<p>If you must have a classification for yourself, then perhaps, human? </p>
<p>Otherwise, get over yourself. Just ask and answer the question. Users are not here to make you <em>feel</em> a certain way. If SE is really a Q & A site, who cares what question is asked, or how the question is answered? You do not make the decision for any one else as to what answers <em>their question</em>.</p>
<hr>
<p>For a freedom of speech perspective, see this <a href="https://english.meta.stackexchange.com/a/12057/330272">answer</a>.</p>
</div>
<div class="grid mb0 fw-wrap ai-start jc-end gs8 gsy">
<time itemprop="dateCreated" datetime="2019-03-01T02:47:40"></time>
<div class="grid--cell mr16" style="flex: 1 1 100px;">
<div class="post-menu"><a href="/a/12064/330272" title="short permalink to this answer" class="short-link" itemprop="url" id="link-post-12064">share</a><span class="lsep">|</span><a href="#" class="js-error-click" title="revise and improve this post" data-error-message="Account is suspended.">edit</a><div class="message message-error message-dismissable" style="position: absolute; display: block;"><div class="message-inner"><div title="close this message (or hit Esc)" class="message-close">×</div><div class="message-text" style="padding-right: 48px;">Account is suspended.</div></div></div></div> <div class="deleted-answer-info">
deleted by <a href="/users/3995/tim-post">Tim Post</a><span class="mod-flair" title="moderator">♦</span> <span title="2019-03-01 14:39:47Z" class="relativetime">yesterday</span>
<div style="margin-top:4px;"><i>Why was your post deleted?</i> See the <a href="/help/deleted-answers">help center</a>.</div>
</div> </div>
<div class="post-signature grid--cell fl0">
<div class="user-info ">
<div class="user-action-time">
answered <span title="2019-03-01 02:47:40Z" class="relativetime">yesterday</span>
</div>
<div class="user-gravatar32">
<a href="/users/330272/guest271314"><div class="gravatar-wrapper-32"><img src="https://www.gravatar.com/avatar/9538ef609067e6d6a842dfef189b77d2?s=32&d=identicon&r=PG" alt="" width="32" height="32"></div></a>
</div>
<div class="user-details" itemprop="author" itemscope="" itemtype="http://schema.org/Person">
<a href="/users/330272/guest271314">guest271314</a><span class="d-none" itemprop="name">guest271314</span>
<div class="-flair">
<span class="reputation-score" title="reputation score " dir="ltr">1</span>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="js-new-contributor-indicator ps-relative">
<div class="new-contributor-indicator fc-medium py6 px8 bbr-sm">
<span class="js-new-contributor-label"><svg aria-hidden="true" class="svg-icon iconWave" width="18" height="18" viewBox="0 0 18 18"><path d="M10.7 17c-2.3 0-3.9-2.05-5.07-3.54l-.49-.6c-.67-.8-1.59-1.63-2.4-2.36A10.91 10.91 0 0 1 1.1 8.87a.79.79 0 0 1-.09-.56c.04-.19.14-.34.27-.4.14-.07.29-.1.45-.1.35 0 .67.18.87.34l3.5 2.75c.04.03.1.03.13 0a.09.09 0 0 0 .02-.13l-.02-.02c-.57-.8-3.42-4.77-3.71-5.15-.21-.27-.3-.58-.24-.84.05-.2.2-.37.4-.48.18-.09.35-.13.52-.13.44 0 .76.28.96.51l3.6 4.42c.04.04.07.06.14.02.05-.02.06-.07.03-.12L4.41 2.96a.94.94 0 0 1-.1-.73.92.92 0 0 1 .47-.57 1.06 1.06 0 0 1 1.4.39l3.8 6.14c.03.04.07.07.14.04.04-.03.06-.07.04-.13A153.8 153.8 0 0 0 8.1 2.54c-.31-.68-.2-1.14.36-1.42.52-.27 1.14-.07 1.47.48l3.69 8.3c.01.04.05.05.1.06a.1.1 0 0 0 .09-.07l.66-2.28c.1-.3.31-.56.62-.72.3-.15.65-.18.98-.1.69.2 1.09.87.89 1.52-.1.37-.46 1.73-.99 3.43l-.1.33c-.58 1.86-1.03 3.33-3.11 4.4-.7.35-1.38.53-2.05.53zm-5.84-.17c-.2.2-1.22 0-1.96-.74s-.92-1.75-.73-1.94c.2-.2.62.61 1.36 1.35.74.75 1.52 1.14 1.33 1.33zm8.39-14.61c.2-.2 1.2 0 1.95.74.74.74.92 1.75.73 1.94-.2.2-.62-.61-1.36-1.35-.74-.75-1.52-1.14-1.32-1.33z"></path></svg> New contributor</span>
</div>
<div class="js-new-contributor-popover temp-popover temp-popover__bottom">
<div class="temp-popover--arrow"></div>
<div class="p12 fs-caption">
<a href="/users/330272/guest271314">guest271314</a> is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our <a href="/conduct">Code of Conduct</a>. </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="post-layout--right">
<div id="comments-12064" class="comments js-comments-container " data-post-id="12064">
<ul class="comments-list js-comments-list" data-remaining-comments-count="0" data-canpost="false" data-cansee="false" data-comments-unavailable="true" data-addlink-disabled="true">
<li id="comment-51943" class="comment js-comment " data-comment-id="51943">
<div class="js-comment-actions comment-actions">
<div class="comment-score js-comment-edit-hide">
</div>
</div>
<div class="comment-text js-comment-text-and-form">
<div class="comment-body js-comment-edit-hide">
<span class="comment-copy">FWIW PM'ed the moderator that deleted the answer when account was suspended to delete the first 4 paragraphs of this users' answer to <a href="https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/35178/">What does Farrakhan mean by “false Jews”?</a> as they did another answer, see <a href="https://politics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/3790/21216">politics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/3790/21216</a> <i>"If you have any credibility as "moderator" you will forthwith remove the top 4 paragraphs that you cite as reason for deleting the answer, as you did at <a href="https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/24326/">politics.stackexchange.com/a/24326</a>."</i> where the remainder of the answer beneath the preface cites the primary source.</span>
– <a href="/users/330272/guest271314" title="1 reputation" class="comment-user">guest271314</a>
<span class="comment-date" dir="ltr"><a class="comment-link" href="#comment51943_12064"><span title="2019-03-01 04:14:45Z" class="relativetime-clean">yesterday</span></a></span>
<span title="this comment was edited 2 times">
<svg aria-hidden="true" class="svg-icon va-text-bottom o50 iconPencilSm" width="14" height="14" viewBox="0 0 14 14"><path d="M8.37 3.7L2 10.11V12h1.88l6.37-6.43zM12.23 2.83L11.1 1.71a.5.5 0 0 0-.7 0L9.2 2.86l1.88 1.84 1.14-1.16a.5.5 0 0 0 0-.71z"></path></svg>
</span>
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li id="comment-51949" class="comment js-comment " data-comment-id="51949">
<div class="js-comment-actions comment-actions">
<div class="comment-score js-comment-edit-hide">
<span title="number of 'useful comment' votes received" class="cool">4</span>
</div>
</div>
<div class="comment-text js-comment-text-and-form">
<div class="comment-body js-comment-edit-hide">
<span class="comment-copy">This answer is very long, perhaps you could edit it down to the salient points, or provide a summary.</span>
– <a href="/users/3559/matt-e-%d0%ad%d0%bb%d0%bb%d0%b5%d0%bd" title="25,391 reputation" class="comment-user owner">Matt E. Эллен<span class="mod-flair" title="moderator">♦</span></a>
<span class="comment-date" dir="ltr"><a class="comment-link" href="#comment51949_12064"><span title="2019-03-01 10:19:26Z" class="relativetime-clean">yesterday</span></a></span>
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li id="comment-51955" class="comment js-comment " data-comment-id="51955">
<div class="js-comment-actions comment-actions">
<div class="comment-score js-comment-edit-hide">
</div>
</div>
<div class="comment-text js-comment-text-and-form">
<div class="comment-body js-comment-edit-hide">
<span class="comment-copy">Whatever you wanted to say here got extremely lost in the delivery. If you have something you want to bring to the discussion, then bring it. I can't make anything out of this than some kind of bizarre dissertation that is, at best, tangentially related to the topic at hand.</span>
– <a href="/users/3995/tim-post" title="481 reputation" class="comment-user">Tim Post<span class="mod-flair" title="moderator">♦</span></a>
<span class="comment-date" dir="ltr"><a class="comment-link" href="#comment51955_12064"><span title="2019-03-01 14:42:09Z" class="relativetime-clean">yesterday</span></a></span>
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div id="comments-link-12064" data-rep="50" data-reg="true">
<a class="js-add-link comments-link disabled-link " title="Use comments to reply to other users or notify them of changes. If you are adding new information, edit your post instead of commenting.">comments disabled on deleted / locked posts / reviews</a><span class="js-link-separator dno"> | </span>
<a class="js-show-link comments-link dno" title="expand to show all comments on this post" href="#" onclick=""></a>
</div>
</div> </div>
</div>
</body>
</html>
// Code goes here
/* Styles go here */