[legutierr]

I hope the irony isn’t lost on you that you are using the word “lynching”—which in its literal, non-metaphorical usage refers to the terroristic murder of racial minorities in the United States—to refer to the non-violent use of cultural power by members of those same minority groups to demand respect from institutions and powerful individuals.

You may think that some of these demands have gone too far, and you may believe that some institutions have been too obsequious in adhering to these demands, but surely you must admit that the use of the word “lynching” in this context is offensive, no?

[stef25]

Thanks for pointing this out. I'm still learning and am determined to do better next time.

[legutierr]

There’s a Spanish idiom that describes your reply here really well, I think. It doesn’t occur to me what the comparable phrase in English would be. Es una cachetada con guante blanco.

I disagree with you, but I have to say, well done. Point made.

[manigandham]

No, because it's not the same context. That's the point. These extreme reaches are the same as banning "master" as the name of a branch in git repos as if it has anything to do with social history.

[legutierr]

To the contrary. The context here is the same, as I explained in my original comment. The connection between the literal and metaphorical use of the word here is too close, which is what makes it rude and offensive.

This is different than using the word “master” to describe the trunk branch of a repository, because when we are talking about a “master branch” it is not in the context of a discussion of offensive racial caricatures being removed from eBay’s website.

[manigandham]

No, I disagree, along with many others. Nothing is rude and offensive on its own, nor do you know what everyone else thinks. What you really mean is it's offensive to you, in which case you should exercise your personal freedoms and rights by reading something else instead of worrying about the rest of us.

As a member of a "minority group* myself, there's no connection to "minority groups demanding respect" here, just the typical outrage over the wildest reaches by those who feel they represent everyone else. By the way, treating people as monolithic groups is where bigotry comes from in the first place so why don't we just stop doing that all together?

[legutierr]

> No, I disagree, along with many others.

If I were trying to win any popularity contests, I wouldn't be discussing this topic on HN. It's risky business!

> Nothing is rude and offensive on its own, nor do you know what everyone else thinks.

I'm not purporting to know what everyone else thinks, only that given the context, the usage of this particular word in this particular situation is offensive.

It's a strange thing for you to insinuate that I feel that I "represent everyone else." Is it not enough for me to be speaking for myself? And what's wrong with users of this website speaking up to negotiate the standards of discourse we all follow here? As I've commented elsewhere, there is a standard of civility, respect and politeness that we all expect from interactions on HN. What that standard comprises should be discussed from time to time.

> As a member of a "minority group myself, there's no connection to "minority groups demanding respect" here..*

If you are going to quote me, then please quote me accurately. I didn't equate OP's "social media lynching" with "minority groups demanding respect". The language I used referred to specific (albeit hypothetical) individuals doing a specific thing. I wrote that "members of those same minority groups" were using "cultural power...to demand respect". It is you who are talking about monolithic groups here—I'm talking about individuals.

If you are a member of one of the minority groups in the US that were historically terrorized by lynch mobs, or were ridiculed in the popular press by the kinds of caricatures that are referenced by the article, then absolutely your opinions on this matter are salient.

It shouldn't require membership in any particular group to view the juxtaposition within OP's metaphor as offensive, however.

The "potential social media lynching" that OP accused eBay of kowtowing to must by its nature be perpetrated by individuals who don't want denigrating, racist caricatures to be promoted and popularized. This is a straw-man in OP's argument, so we don't know precisely who OP would be referring to, but it's not too big a stretch to interpret OP's comment as referring to individuals whose ethnicities are being ridiculed in these books, including African, Native American, Chinese and Arab ethnicities. In fact, a brief search of media reports regarding this controversy would reveal that many prominent commentators on the subject have been African-American and Hispanic educators. Most of this actual commentary has been well-reasoned and civilized, however, and is not at all mob-like.

In contrast, "lynching" in the United States primarily existed as a tool by which white mobs terrorized non-white communities into social, economic and political subservience, by murdering people. Take a look at some of the pictures, and read some of the history:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching_in_the_United_States

Lynching is not just some better-forgotten historical grievance. It was a tool for genocide and white supremacy—a tool used to rob Mexican and indigenous landowners of their property, and to keep black people subjugated and to deprive them of political power and economic independence. The last known lynching in the United States took place less than 40 years ago—within my own lifetime. The downstream effects of this violence persist today.

Lynching was also part of a continuum of white supremacist culture that included ethnic caricatures that were intended to ridicule subjugated people, and which had the effect of dehumanizing those people. Dehumanization is a necessary precursor to mob violence, and lynchings would not have been possible without the cruel, dehumanizing propaganda that promoted white-supremacy in the United States for more than 100 years after the civil war.

OP's metaphorical lynch mob would include individuals whose ancestors were terrorized by actual lynch mobs. To convert metaphor to simile, OP was saying that these individuals whose ancestors were terrorized by lynch mobs are themselves like a lynch mob when they complain about the on-going, present-day publication of imagery that was originally created to promote the persecution of those same ancestors.

Is this not offensive on its face? Even if you disagree with these people, how can you not see OP's metaphor as demeaning towards them? And even if you don't care about offending people in the wider world, what about those of us on this website who also fit the same description? Is it not rude to us?

Look, I don't want anyone to be shamed, punished, penalized or "canceled" here. That would be ridiculous. I wasn't even looking for any kind of apology. I'm just hoping that the standards of civility and respect followed by members of the HN community can incorporate an awareness of what this kind of language really means to some of us.

There are some things that no civilized person will say in polite society—that idea, I think, is not controversial. Let this particular use of the word "lynching" be one of those things.

[manigandham]

"the usage of this particular word in this particular situation is offensive"

Again, it's offensive to you.

I disagree, as I understand that the metaphor is about mob justice without evidence or due process; a concept that is well understood and easily separated from social history. If you truly think it's about individuals then I'm not sure what there is to discuss on such a subjective matter.

[pm90]

I can’t help but point out the incredible situation where you are engaging in precisely the kind of behavior that the person you’re replying to seems to have issue against : )

[legutierr]

And what behavior is that, precisely?

Pointing out that certain usage of language can be offensive? That we shouldn’t be unintentional when causing offense? That if we cause offense intentionally, we shouldn’t be surprised by the reaction of the party we have purposely insulted?

[moduspol]

We haven't seen evidence anyone has been offended yet. Only that you are concerned others might be.

A surprisingly common phenomenon.

[legutierr]

Perhaps I was offended and was trying to point that out politely.

I wasn’t badly offended. I was offended enough to take the time to write these comments.

Keep in mind that on HN, rude and offensive comments are down-voted all the time. There is a politeness standard on this website, and perhaps that standard should incorporate the use of language like this!

[moduspol]

Controlling the language people use under the premise of someone arguably being offended is rarely really about "politeness," though.

Perhaps it's better if we all act like adults capable of understanding nuance in a discussion.

[legutierr]

What is politeness but acting in a manner that is respectful of the sensitivities of our peers?

Perhaps the heart of the issue here is that when the sensitivities of certain people are not deemed to be worthy of polite respect, we are implicitly deciding that those people are not worthy of being our peers.

[Amezarak]

While Black people were disproportionately victims of lynching, lynching was not in itself a racial phenomenon, even if racists frequently employed it. People of all races were commonly lynched by people of all races. It's a legacy from a time when mob justice was common, in part because of the limitations of the legal system.

So his usage seems quite correct.

[Dirlewanger]

You sound like someone who'd have a problem with someone because their last name is Lynch.