if you think this is dumb, maybe policing anyone’s language is dumb. Be it religious, sexual, racial etc.
If you disagree, I’d love to hear your logic.
Well, I wouldn’t say I disagree, but I think it is an interesting topic.
What I taught my kid since daycare is that there are no such thing as bad words, only bad intent and inappropriate context.
On one hand I find the filters infantilizing, on the other if using the particular words they seem to hit were deemed a ban-worthy offense I wouldn’t have made it a day without them.
Many contexts have both explicit and tacit guidelines that exclude some language regardless of intent. That’s pretty common. You can whine about it if you want, but seems pointless in most cases.
If and how that is policed is context dependent too.
I’m a big boy and don’t need to be protected from text on a screen. While I wouldn’t necessarily call the JFC ask dumb, it seems extremely frivolous based on my read of community standards and I’d be absolutely mortified asking for an equivalent more aligned with my own aesthetics, whatever that may be.
I already find the filters interfere a bit with comprehension. If the guidelines here were to allow for aggressive proliferation of kiddy-filtering I think it’d become borderline unreadable if catering to the most sensitive among us.
If they were dropped and the hard-r kinda folks took advantage of their newfound freedom I would expect the community would probably come to some sort of general consensus on how to police it.
So I guess I’d say I do disagree with your premise to some degree. While I am personally damn near an absolutist on the subject I recognize this is a fringe position. The way the real world works allows for subjective policing and it is silly to treat attempts to police things far afield the norms of the community the same as those smack dab in the mainstream.
