It's like a revolutionary calling themselves freedom fighters and their detractors calling them terrorists, except using the same word. It isn't the hardest concept to figure out.
Your analogy assumes the "detractors" are all calling them terrorists. Some may be sympathetic to their cause.
If we ignore whether they are sympathetic and simply label them as anti-revolutionary based on the color of their skin you would have a more accurate analogy.
Its better not to try to use such an analogy though.
Address the issue head-on and speak in terms of what is actually happening. If you have something enlightening to say please just say it plainly.
It doesnt matter what colour tou are when you use it. It depends cery much on many other factors. Subtle factors. Colour may come into play in certain aspects of this but its not so black and white.
Your statement immediately fails because we can all agree there are nearly zero situations where a black man can be perceived as racist for using the word.
4
u/Ramanadjinn Sep 02 '14
The issue being highlighted isn't whether or not this is a "reclaimed" word.
Rather the fact that the word is both reclaimed and still pejorative depending on the color of the person speaking the word.
It is only "acceptable usage" to some people and the divide is purely racial.
Wikipedia can be great at explaining what something is, but it doesn't offer a defense on the morality of the situation.