> But realize that by giving white people a double standard in terms of how they can express themselves, you're being racist against white people, and for black people, furthering the racial and cultural divide. Rationalizing treating people differently based on the color of their skin isn't any less racist just because you're on the populist, politically-correct side.

No you're not, you're being entirely consistent. The rule is simple - don't be offensive and context counts.

Taking race out of it - you can say something to or about your wife, girlfriend, husband or boyfriend which if I were to say it would be offensive. That's not a double standard, that's context. There is relationship (or lack of), a history (or lack of) and so on, all of which contributes.

Sadly, this does mean that simple, easy rules often aren't possible but that fact that those rules are complicated doesn't mean white people get to cry "racism" over a word which has historically been both offensive and oppressive, regardless of whether there is an attempt to reclaim that word.

All that's not to say that there can't be racism against white people - there can - just that this isn't it.

For what it's worth, I think if you're quoting a song (or work of literature, poetry or whatever), I think there is little reason to censor whoever you are, so long as you're doing it genuinely and reasonably (as opposed to just using it as an excuse to say something you wouldn't otherwise be able to).

On a literal basis it is racist because you invoke race. On a logical basis it is racist because you ignore context and treat the use of a word based on the color of the skin of the person using it. On a moral basis it is racist because one group getting offended is not any more or less valid than some other group getting offended.

Most importantly, the fact that the word is offensive to someone does not invalidate the racist double-standard. That's what context means: that the use of a word or phrase has multiple properties. On the one hand, use of the word by a white person is offensive. On the other hand, saying a white person can not use that word is racist. Both of these things are true at the same time.

You can attempt to gloss over these facts by saying "oh, historical use" or "oh, it's offensive" and many other reasons, but that does not remove the racism inherent to the double standard which is based on the color of the skin of the speaker. If the word was not offensive, it would still be a racist double standard.

More fulsome answer.

You need to check the definition of racism. It's not simply discrimination on the grounds of race, it includes that there is a belief in the superiority / inferiority of the race(s) under discussion. Maybe it's just me but I really don't see how that applies here. No one is saying you can't use the word because only black people are good enough to use it so on a logical basis, no, it's not racism, at least not by the real definition.

In terms of the double standard, it's not a double standard at all, it's a standard that exists in all conversations which is that the context and the relationships and history between the two people involved matter. I can say things to my daughter which would be massively offensive for you to say. I can insult my best friend using an unambiguously obscene word and he'll laugh at me, you do it and he'd likely swing for you. In both these cases it's entirely clear that the context is important so I don't see why these are fine but it becomes a double standard to invoke context elsewhere.

These are very, very old arguments that have been attempted time and time again but they simply don't hold water.

To be clear you're drawing a comparison between a white person getting offended by not being allowed to use an offensive word, and a black person getting offended by a word which has strong connotations to literally generations of oppression including but not limited to being bought and sold as property?

Seriously?