Yes, I’m aware I can curse on the internet - it’s not my first day here. I use the exact words I mean to use, and I’m more a fan of the precision F-strike than indiscriminately carpet-bombing the place with “fucks”. Stop word-policing me (and others).
Edited to add alt text.
Yeah, this went over about as well as expected. And the irony and hypocrisy of the free speech absolutists coming out of the woodwork to tell us all what we can and can’t say is not lost on me.
I mean, I’m not policing your words here, write how you want what do I care.
But you brought up the reasoning yourself, and when I find it flawed your response is “I don’t need a reason”.
Where? Their whole post is just “let people say what they want to say”. You’re the one trying to force them to justify it or fit your weird rubric.
They did say they’re in favour of not “carpet bombing f-bombs” which does sound like they’d prefer less vulgarity and they
censor any curse word in order to achieve that.see censoring curse words as a way to achieve that.Edit: clarity
Stating their personal preference isn’t a “reasoning”. Do you also think someone that wears a blue shirt is “reasoning” that everyone should wear blue shirts forever?
They mentioned their preference in context of their thesis (“it’s perfectly fine to censor curse words”) so I can’t help but understand it as meant to support that thesis.
I think it was more of an example of why someone would want to use censored curses without it having any wierd reasoning like religion or something. Just an illustration that censored curses are not necessarily evil. That’s an important context. But it’s just context, not the basis of the point. The point was: don’t tell people what words they should use, it’s not your business.
And the reaction to that was “it doesn’t work like how you think it works”.