you two may be familiar with this, but i find it fascinating - people like town are arguing to control my language because it may be offensive to some undefined person somewhere, somewhen - but he thinks nothing of the use of the terms "moron", "idiot", "cretin" and "imbecile"
This is the tweet twitter requires me to remove myself, before I can continue using their social media site.
@piersmorgan Why do you keep railing against people with mental defects? Murderers are not 'maniacs,' they are murderers. Please keep them separated in your mind, you [-ubar word] [R word].
(I was commenting on a spiteful anti gun rights tweet @piersmorgan made, one of very many that they made that day.)
I censored it for this site . . . wait, I excessively censored it for TOL: Here's the TOL-compliant version:
@piersmorgan Why do you keep railing against people with mental defects? Murderers are not 'maniacs,' they are murderers. Please keep them separated in your mind, you [-ubar word] retard.
The twitter-compliant version is not visible on TOL because of the -ubar word, but the R word is OK here. It's vice versa on twitter.
I'm thinking of just caving in and removing the tweet and getting back on, but it's really only so that I can contact Catholic TV on twitter, and complain about something to them concerning their streaming on-demand shows on the Roku.
Do you think I should just cave to twitter being R words? It doesn't feel right, and it'd be easy enough to start a new twitter account and just continue on my way, but at the same time, this tweet is not published; nobody can see it but me, because even though it's not technically deleted, it's never going to see the light of twitter day, one way or another; I'll either remove it, and it won't be shown, or I'll just walk away, and it won't be shown. So that seems like I'm already defeated in even using their platform, if I don't want to abide by their rules, no matter how R word those rules are (and I mean, they are as if a cluster of clinically R word people made the decisions).
It seems like there's such a thing as a lost cause, and as a checkmate. I don't want to be R word about this and break my forehead on a wall of bricks. Maybe I just come back and get more creative about saying the R word without actually saying the R word.
But I think the bottom line is that it is R word, that I am forced to have to think this through myself, without any boundaries that aren't arbitrary (to your point). If there are no inalienable boundaries, then this is a waste of time, but if there are, no one can show us the tablets, it's like Joe Smith who couldn't show us the plates, but could conveniently recall thousands and thousands of words that he read off those plates, with optical character recognition and Google Translate auto-replacement enabled reading glasses, and he lost the reading glasses too.
There's no moral authority here. The First Amendment doesn't invoke any authority, that's what the freedom of speech and of the press means, nobody can tell you with valid authority that how you're expressing yourself is wrong; if anybody could, then we wouldn't possess the inalienable right to free speech, but we do possess that inalienable right.
Why can't I just say the R word and all the -ubar words? This, I ask to the famous "some undefined person somewhere, somewhen" that you named. Their answer? Crickets. It's made up, by the people who are pointing fingers. If they didn't point fingers, this wouldn't be so R word. And ironically if they weren't so R word, they Wouldn't Point Fingers.
To your point.