The only difference is that, in the case of the LA City Council, the resolution they approved on Friday, "symbolically bans the n-word in Los Angeles, in the latest effort to stop people from using the epithet in any context," and that's the only way it makes any sense at all to me.
I agree with you that people often reveal their true character in the words they choose to use, which is why people often choose not to hang with those who speak in a manner that offends them.
Either the word is "burning" and "hurtful" or it isn't.
Either it's "hate speech" or it isn't.
For example:
If X were somewhere that X heard an unknown and unseen person in the next room say the n-word, either that word would "burn and hurt" X or it would not.
But if X has to wait to see the skin color of the person in the next room before becoming "burned and hurt," then it's X's own hate that makes the difference, not the n-word, itself.
I feel like no word is hurtful in and of itself until context is introduced (both the context of the speaker and the listener). All words are neutral until context is introduced. A word can be burning and hurtful in one context and not burning or hurtful in another context.
I can't think of a single word that I would ban.
