> By that I mean not that expressing the meaning of a word is forbidden, not the idea, but the utterance itself. If, like me, you tend to assume that cultures become more progressive and tolerant over time, this is an interesting very strong counter-example. Having a word that you that literally can't say even in quotation or reference implies something almost akin to magical thinking. As if the two syllables themselves, even when stripped of meaning, still have some kind of power.

I don't know that the people who leveled accusations against this guy are completely equating "usage" and "meta-usage".

I do know that there are people who view "meta-usage", particularly in casual conversation, as problematic. The n-word is viewed by them to have connotations of severe power imbalance and violence, particularly in the mouth of a white person. The idea that they should have to hear the word in casual conversation, without warning, whether it's intended to wound or not, is contentious. Intent matters, but so do the words themselves. To put it in your terms, some words cannot just be "stripped of meaning" to some people.

I personally empathize with people who feel this way, despite being a white guy for whom no such word with such visceral effect seems to exist. Even if discussing racism in a conversation, I probably just wouldn't whip out a historical quote from someone that happened to have the n-word in it. And I don't think that's as ridiculous as you're making it out to be.

Nobody is suggesting that contextualized, or (ideally, to some) forewarned, meta-usage will never have its place. But that's not really what happened in this story, is it?