Whats the point of writing prn, f@ck, sht or anything like that instead of the actual words? You can still read them, its not like they are gone if you replace a letter or two.
Because swearing is a natural part of the human experience and most level headed people don’t feel the need to suppress human expression.
Swearing serves an important biological need to express emotion and communicate. Psychologically, we swear to express strong emotions and when people swear, they are inherently viewed as more trustworthy or honest. Swearing helps people bond.
They're not talking about swearing. Call someone a fucking shit-eating worm is fine. But on the other hand are words used to insult marginalized groups (women, homosexuals, the mentally disabled, etc.). B/*itch, wh/*ore, c/*nt; c/*cksucker, f/*g; r/*tard, a/*tist, etc.
These are the words being blocked. Not swears, slurs. You can say fuck, shit, damn, and hell all you want.
For what it's worth, I tend to fall on the side of a little bit being fine. I don't use those words (except the slurs against w/*men), but if there's one thing I fucking hate, it's Scolds. If Felix Biederman wants to call people r/*tards and c/*cksuckers, I think he should be allowed to, and I'm not going to try to cancel him for it.
Man MLK's entire political career was being an anti-white racist, shut the fuck up cracker. Just because you got the whitewashed version of him which wiped away all the stuff he actually stood for just so that liberals could pat themselves on the back that they weren't a part of it.
EDIT: He even has a famous speech about "The white moderate" how much more obvious does he have to be??
I see you have a misunderstanding there about the "white moderates" thing.
At the time white people literally held all the power (damn near anyways), so someone who was a "white moderate" was someone who was in the group of power and didn't advocate for positive change for the rights of others.
It was less a "white moderate" thing and more a "person in group of power who was moderate" thing
Those who advocated (and those who do so currently) for the positive change in terms of civil rights were (and are) considered radicals.
You even see this kind of stuff now with the "enlightened centrist" people. The people who think that we should compromise with those trying to take rights away.
Please tell me how calling out racism is white supremacy...
I bet you can't.
He also seemed to think not all white people were bad
The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny.
I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.
Go back to whatever hateful little spot you are from and realise you will never get out of it by hating people for things they haven't done.
I think there’s some miscommunication here. You’re the only person in this thread that brought up slurs. Everyone else is talking about swear words which is a different thing. I don’t think anyone here is saying slurs aren’t bad. What people are saying is it should be ok to use swear words, which you just demonstrated with your comment.
I'm not confused, misogo is so rampant that people don't even consider them to be slurs, kind of like what used to happen to ableist slurs.
I'm willing to bet a good amount of people in this comment section used to use ableist slurs before they were told not to, because they treat slurs as "words I'm not allowed to say" rather than genuinely not wanting to hurt the groups that said slurs are targeting.