A lynching is an extrajudicial execution by a mob. It's clear to me where you're coming from, and that there's no point in us continuing to litigate this.

Now you seem to be pretending not to understand a metaphor. Is that to avoid actually debating the point? And please do let me know where I'm coming from. I'd like to hear that, since it's so clear in your mind.

You can call me a racist all you want. At the end of the day, I'm advocating one standard of conduct for everyone without distinction by race, while my opponents are arguing for discrimination by race when judging conduct, for segregation of parts of our language by race, etc.

That is in fact not what I'm advocating.

What I am saying is that the words you choose and utter send signals, and the signal sent does, in fact, depend on who you are and, in this case, on the color of your skin (if we were discussing the f-word, it would depend instead on whether you were evidently an LGBT person).

That's not a controversial statement. It's an obvious one. You have to work to make it problematic, and the work you put into making it problematic also sends a signal, as does your use of the word "lynching" to describe the termination of a Netflix executive (the subtext of my response to that comment was not that you don't know the definition of the word).

That signal you've sent is what I was referring to when I said there was no point to us litigating this. I feel bad for having left enough of a string dangling for 'pvg to have felt the need to bat at (though I tentatively agree with the sentiment he shared). But now, having explained what I was trying to say for an entire second time, I'm confident there's really no need for either of us to make the same points again in escalating stridency.

This is a deep, deep subthread on a flagged submission to HN that is a day old. We're the only people reading this. There are no stakes to this discussion. I think we can stop needling each other any time.

You say my words send signals, and that the signals depend in this case on the color of my skin. That seems to me to be an evasive way of saying some people will discriminate whether what I'm saying is perfectly OK or terribly offensive based on my race.

If the interpreter sees themselves as a member of a racial group, and thinks that their racial group has ownership over a word, they may get upset if they see an outsider using their word. I understand that. That is what's happening. But the mentality in which someone sees themselves as a member of some separate group because of their race is exactly what I am opposing.

You say our actions send signals. Well, is this guy just drinking water at a water fountain? Is he just sitting on a bus? Or is he sending a "signal" that he thinks he's as good as a white man by drinking from the "wrong" fountain or sitting in the "wrong" seat on the bus? The problem is not entirely within the so-called signal, a big part of it is within the mind of the interpreter.

I know how saying that word would be received by a lot of black people, and I would never do that, as I have a very strong commitment never to harm anyone, and just a lot of general sympathy, compassion, and love for black people. But I have to resist if anyone starts claiming that their race gives them special ownership over words. That is a step in the wrong direction.

'lynching', 'uppity', a bunch of variants of 'they're the real racists', 'neo-segregationists'. You consistently and repeatedly adopt the language of actual oppression and violence against minorities to describe your particular minor grievances. The only people who speak in those terms are racists and racist-apologists. If you don't want people to think you're one of them, find another way to express yourself.

But I have to resist

Yeah, you're joining the Maquis over the jackbooted thuggery of some random person getting fired from Netflix.

I have really no idea what you're talking about with respect to water fountains and busses. Nobody cares who sits where on the bus, except don't take the handicap spots and don't give your bags their own seat.

On the other hand, if you're a white dude and you casually use the N-word, people are going to draw conclusions about you. That's not a Hacker News argument; it is a simple statement of fact, obviously backed up by the article we are commenting on. You can not like that fact all you want, but again, be aware, in the same way that people will draw conclusions about you for using the word, they will also draw conclusions about you for how loudly you protest the injustice of the fact that you can't safely use the word.

> I have really no idea what you're talking about with respect to water fountains and busses.

Assuming good faith here. Let me try again.

The idea is that saying the n-word while not being black sends a signal of not caring about the word, not giving it enough weight, not caring about the plight of black people. Well, I'm saying that's not true. That information is not in the signal.

Suppose a young white person is sitting in a cafe. They raise a phone to their ear and uses the n-word the way that has become normal, to mean man/person: "hey, what up my (n-word)?"

If I overheard that, I wouldn't think anything of it. They're greeting a friend. I just don't have any notions about how only people of certain ethnicities are allowed to use certain words.

If you did have such notions, you might be offended. But that's in the machinery of your own mind, not the signal. The signal was just "how are you, man/person?"

Suppose you (Thomas) see a black man sitting near the front of a bus. What signal is he sending to you? Not much, right? He's just sitting there. Now, suppose it's the 50s, and it's Alabama, and the onlooker is an older white man. What signal do you suppose that guy gets? He might get a signal that an uppity negro thinks he's the equal of a white man. So, where is the problem? In the sitting, or in the looking?

Now, where is the problem in the situation we're talking about? In the speaking of a word that means man/person, or in the hearing of it?

I imagine there are a lot of black people who just loathe the n-word, and never want to hear it from anyone. This is actually the perspective that makes the most sense to me. But they have to concede that the meaning of the word has changed. The vast majority of the time, it just means man/person. Sorry. I would have preferred we just forget the word, but that's not what happened. Now it means man/person, and our squabble is about whether people who never had anything whatsoever to do with the racial persecution of anyone will be firewalled from certain parts of our language because of their perceived ethnic affiliation.

I'm saying no. It's unfair, and it's not a wise way forward, and just unacceptable to me personally.

You are making a normative argument. I am making a positive argument. You aren't acknowledging the positive argument, let alone rebutting it; you just re-type the normative one, with angrier words. You're not going to get anywhere doing that.