[kenjackson]

If I tell you the word blah is inflammatory (especially to a marginalized group) just in its mere mention and the word blech is its non-inflammatory substitute to use when you want to talk about the word blah. Then you proceed to use the word blah, I can’t make any assumptions about intent?

[DarkWiiPlayer]

You could take your assumptions, but they would be wrong and ridiculous.

If you told me I'm not allowed to say "blah" and should use "blech" instead, why would I care? I'd use "blah" because that's the right word. It's literally the actual word I'm talking about.

And as for the point that it's "inflammatory": that's not my problem. I'm not interested in having any conversation where the invocation of one word or another can detail the whole discussion. If that's the case, then I'd rather leave that conversation anyway.

And why don't I have the right to be offended by the phrase "n-word"? Every time I hear it I feel the implication that my freedom of expression (a human right, mind you) is being slowly eroded. Need I point out that, as an east-German the issue of freedom of expression is historically much closer to me than racism and slavery? I mention that just in case you want to pull the "oh but you're not black" argument.

[kenjackson]

> If you told me I'm not allowed to say "blah" and should use "blech" instead

I didn't say you weren't allowed to say it, I said it would be inflammatory. "blah" is only the right word if you choose to be inflammatory. So given that this is the word you have chosen to use, why should I assume you meant something different? Now you may not want to deal with the consequences of that word, after you've used it -- that's fine, but I know what you meant at the time.

> I'm not interested in having any conversation where the invocation of one word or another can detail the whole discussion. If that's the case, then I'd rather leave that conversation anyway.

Always your choice to not be in any conversation. I'd argue that most people that use the word are intending to derail the conversation. People aren't that stupid. They know what they're doing.

> And why don't I have the right to be offended by the phrase "n-word"

You can be. You an be offended by the word "the". You can completely remap the English language any way you like. That's your choice.

> Every time I hear it I feel the implication that my freedom of expression (a human right, mind you) is being slowly eroded.

Why? Because we've given you more choices to express yourself? Are you triggered by all euphemisms? In fact there are audiences that will love it if you say the actual n-word -- especially in a derogatory way toward Black people if you like. Enjoy your freedom of expression, you can exercise it.

> Need I point out that, as an east-German the issue of freedom of expression is historically much closer to me than racism and slavery

Racism is still very much alive today, so I'm not sure how freedom of expression is much closer to you today than racism is for Blacks -- but I guess you wouldn't know since you're not Black.

[DarkWiiPlayer]

> Why? Because we've given you more choices to express yourself?

1. Make up a new word 2. Give people the choice to use the new word 3. Destroy them if they choose not to.

Sure.

> Racism is still very much alive today

Try criticising the government in china and you will soon realise that censorship is also very much alive today. Not that this makes a difference in either case, of course.

> so I'm not sure how freedom of expression is much closer to you today than racism is for Blacks.

Forst of all, "Blacks": https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W17-3014.pdf

Second, black people exist outside of america, in case you didn't know. So mentioning them as just "blacks" already shows a rather narrow view of the world.

Freedom of expression is closer to me than racism. Racism is probably closer to many black Americans than freedom of expression. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't intentionally misunderstand that just to have a ridiculous strawman to argue against.