To what extent does censoring a word censor history itself?
To what extent does retaining a word's original meaning despite its wide usage in different social contexts (because in different historical contexts) distort the development of language itself?

Lilo, point taken re my failed analogy. If ni**er isn't an official identification, it's still widely used in a lot of different contexts, none of which or most of which are not in any way consciously negative.

I don't agree 'it's just a word', but I don't think words have a fixed meaning removed or isolated from the context in which they occur.

Words have never offended me more than the intention behind them.

For instance, if someone called my mother a [BadWord], I'd be much more offended by the implication that that sort of thing would goad me into a reaction than the 'insult' itself.