Yes, we all know racism exists. However, if the paper hadn't published Eng's article, I certainly would have never known of his individual point of view, however sarcastic, and none of us would be having this discussion. That is the good thing the paper did and should have done.

You are welcome to express your opinion, which is my entire point.

Mine is that repressing free speech just because we hate it is a current American belief that also violates fundamental American values.

Yes, as expressions of free speech, papers SHOULD always run controversial articles, ESPECIALLY when there are people who want to suppress them for their content.

I would MUCH rather know who, explicitly is a hate-monger than force them underground, because it is much more difficult to have a sincere discussion about hate when it is underground.

Attempts to modify language use are actually excellent when done for reasons of trying to more precisely convey intent and meaning, but banning or changing words because they make people uncomfortable fall into the same misguided logical fallacy.

People need to learn how to confront racism and surpressing it is NOT facing it.

All, IMO, naturally. Please feel free to discuss. Or is discussion, malarkey?