To restate my point - I'm not advocating for banning speech. I'm _certainly_ not advocating for banning the discussion of sensitive topics. I'm asking people to recognize that, by using certain forms of speech _that they have been asked not to use_, they are presenting themselves as someone to whom speaking in that particular way is more important than the feelings of the people who they're speaking to or about.

You, clearly, are signalling yourself as one of those people. And that's your right! That was your choice to make.

But maybe stop and think about why you think it's so important to you to tell people to shut up about something that bothers them, and if you want to be seen as someone who's deliberately and wilfully causing harm when there exist other ways to phrase the same concept.

It's entirely obvious to me! As I wrote at greater length here[0] - I am not advocating for banning words! I am asking for a recognition that certain forms of speech have certain impacts on the listener, and that by using them you are signalling yourself as "someone who has made the choice that that form of speech is more important than the possible impact". I'm not saying "never take that risk", I'm saying "recognize that it exists, and factor it into your choice of speech". If using a particular slur is super-important to you, go ahead and use it! But don't pretend that people are unreasonable for then thinking of you as "someone who is comfortable using slurs" - because, by definition, that is what you have shown yourself to be. And those judgements lie on a continuum - and each person will be comfortable with existing at different points on that continuum. _This is not policing or enforcement_ - it's just how social signalling works. You choose how you want to be perceived.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33648904

> To put a fine point on it, equating "discomfort" and "harm" is flawed.

That's fair! Negative impacts certainly exist on a continuum! I felt like "harm" was a reasonable synonym for "negatively impact", but you're right that it carries a stronger connotation than "mildly inconvenience"; and it also has a more direct connotation than "perpetuate negative stereotypes in listeners" (using homophobic slurs has negative impact _even if no homosexual people are around to hear them_, because it emboldens homophobes and normalizes homophobia)

So let me loosen my original statement to "using this particular form of speech will negatively impact (whether directly or indirectly) certain people, ...etc.". And please do notice that I didn't describe the outcome as "then you are a bad person"! It's reasonable and justifiable to pick a point on that spectrum and say "you know what - negative impacts that are weaker than this just really don't matter to me. There's a certain level of tip-toeing around that just isn't worth it for the miniscule risk". Hell, I do it too. There's a tiny chance that my use of "hell" as a casual interjection might offend a religious reader - but in my determination, that offence is less important to me than that particular form of speech. There are probably a ton of other words or phrases I use for which I've made a similar (conscious or unconscious) determination.

My point is - speech has an impact. Indeed, if it didn't, it would be pointless. The point of speech is to communicate. Communication distributes ideas, concepts, thoughts from one brain to others. Those ideas will not just be the ones that are directly communicated in the speech, but also "meta-ideas" communicated by the form of speech. Meta-communication, more often than not, is about the speaker rather than just the content. If I hear someone teaching a complicated topic, I will assume (rightly or wrongly!) something about their level of intelligence and knowledge. If I hear someone speaking clearly and convincingly, I will assume that they've taken the time to prepare and research - and vice versa. If I hear someone using an obscure word, I'll assume they have an interest in vocabulary (and/or are involved in the field in which that term is common). If I hear someone using a well-known slur, I'll assume that they have made the deliberate choice to do so in the knowledge that it _is_ a slur. It's a form of social signalling.

So, y'know - if you believe that forms of speech that do cause "discomfort" are acceptable, and ones that cause "harm" are not (based on your own determination of the likelihood of those impacts, hopefully informed by the people who are actually impacted), _that's justifiable_. I'm not saying that words should be banned. I'm asking for a recognition that the use of a word - _any_ word - is a signal; that some signals are more distinct than others; and that that signal will be interpreted by listeners as reflecting something about the speaker's value system. That's not policing - it's a recognition of personal choice.