I see what u/zharklm is doing. He's referring to you, Slechta5614, with one spelling of the N word and with one of its positive definitions, namely, he's calling you "a victim of prejudice similar to that suffered by Black people" as per the Random House Unabridged. (For the link, type "dictionary.com/browse/" and follow it with the word you want to look up, presumably the 6-letter spelling.)

I submit that this is intended as a positive post in the way you mean it. The point is that the N word is often used both fraternally among blacks and also metaphorically by anyone to refer positively to any group-prejudiced person, including the Irish (Roddy Doyle quote at same link) or even Jesus. The fact that many forums draw heavily on the disparaging definitions does not remove the fact that these other positive usages have existed a long time and still exist when used among those for whom positive context is clear. The N word is also not unique in any respect among insults; for instance, the word "kaffir", meaning a black person, is regarded as even more hateful when used in South Africa, where it is literally illegal in some contexts, even though it is hardly known outside its borders. There, I just used the "hateful" word "kaffir" positively.

In short, bans should not be based on words only, but on words and context. No racism, no hate speech, no illegal speech seem pretty simple. We can unify around these principles after the "shill storms" (i.e., onslaughts by those clearly sowing divisiveness who disappear as rapidly as they appear; note that I'm not calling anyone a shill, I'm giving tools to help identify them in one's independent judgment).