Here you go. Please be as in-depth as you can. Thanks.
Did you not get my email? Here’s what I wrote there:
I don’t moderate the simple appearance of a racial slur. I moderate it for malicious usage against the group described by the slur.* Saying, “Nigger is a common slur against black people” is not going to trigger a warning. Saying, “Barrack Obama is a nigger,” almost certainly would. There’s obviously a lot of middle ground there, and some definite grey areas, but generally speaking, I would not moderate someone saying to another poster, “You’re the sort of person who calls people niggers.” That’s an attack on a (perceived) racist, not an attack on a race, and as such, does not trigger the hate speech rule. snfaulker’s post is of a kind with that - he’s not calling Hispanics “taco niggers” himself, he’s ascribing that attitude to you.
*That’s actually a bit simplified - there’s some usages that aren’t directly aimed at a member of the group that would still draw a warning. Calling another poster a faggot, for example, regardless of whether the target is queer or not, or phrases like, “I Jewed the guy down and got a better deal.” They’re still examples of slurs being used to show antipathy towards a group, even if no actual member of the group in question is involved in the exchange. Again, though, in the post you reported, snfaulker’s antipathy is clearly towards you and other people he perceives as racist, and not towards Hispanics.
…HurricaneDitka: both you and snfaulkner used the words taco n#$%$$ on these boards.
Should context be taken into account? If we ignore context, if we have zero tolerance, then why is your usage of the words materially different from snfaulkner’s? Should you get a warning?
(Having said that: there is inconsistency on how the word is moderated: I remember a poster used the word in the same context as snfaulkner a few years ago in Great Debates and got suspended: I suspect the forum and the moderator make a difference, but some clarity would be good.)
I understand why you might not see value in joining the multi-year general Pit thread. The other thread asked you a specific question about recent news. It would be good to have you answer that one. Perhaps a new thread could be started in GD.
Only one way to find out!
No, I didn’t, so I really appreciate you chiming in here with clarification. Thanks.
Yeah, I think it’s quite clear that the poster was saying “You, HD, are the kind of person who would think of Latinos as ‘taco niggers’”. He was not using that epithet against Latinos. We can argue as to whether he was being accurate or not, but he wasn’t being racist and it was in the Pit, so seems like no rule was broken to me.
That’s a hugely horrific insult to be throwing around in GD. Just because you can do it in the Pit doesn’t mean you can do it in GD.
…it wasn’t used as an insult.
Could the phrase safely be used against me, inasmuch as I am Hispanic?
Just wanna say that before today, somehow I’d never before heard the term that is the subject of this thread. So, uh, thanks, I guess.
Honestly, I intended to say “taco-eating” but somehow my phone decided against me. I deferred to its judgement on the matter.
Wait a darn minute. I eat tacos! Hate Speech!!!
Someone calling you a “taco nigger” would almost certainly draw a warning. Someone suggesting that you view other Hispanics as “taco niggers” would probably not.
Was this not clear in my previous post?
I’m sort of torn on this one. It seems that under this rule, I can say, “You seem like the kind of person who would…” and follow it up with hate speech, threats of legal action against the SDMB, threats of violence, etc. basically anything and get by with it.
I understand that it was in the Pit, but in these modern times with modern sensibilities, saying something to the effect of “You are the type of person who would call someone a nigger” goes beyond a basic insult to fighting words. Hell, people are losing their jobs by just using that word in reference to another conversation.
I echo this question. Where XXXX is a slur,
Miller, you seem like the kind of person who is XXXX = warning.
Miller, you seem like the kind of person who thinks UltraVires is XXXX = no warning.
Is that the substance of this ruling?
Is it really that hard to understand what he said? 
(Nope, this has had far too much attention)
It’s Bricker. C’mon, it’s not that hard to understand what he’s doing. 
Snfaulkener used it as an insult in the Pit, so if the poster used it “in the same context as snfaulkner”, then it was an insult. If it wasn’t an insult, then it wasn’t used in the same context.
But maybe I’m missing something. Care to link to the post in question?
…wrong context.
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18420151&postcount=15
It wasn’t used as an insult (IMHO of course) but to illustrate a point.
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18424149&postcount=2
The (original) ruling: “The one with the repeated use of variations of the word ‘nigger’ would be enough to earn him a suspension in my eyes.”
Context important in one ruling but context unimportant in another. That’s all I’m pointing out.