I'd like to get philosophical about 'obscenities' for a bit.
A mature discussion must include diverse input, or you sacrifice the benefit of a diverse group.
I think it's unproductive to try to sanitize discourse by removing hyperbole or perceived obscenity. Such 'civil' exchanges leave the idea of 'obscene' an open variable, ready to take whatever shape the accuser wishes to vilify. The very concept becomes a censorship device. I think many people see the hypocrisy inherent and intentionally evoke obscenity while maintaining their salient points.(At work in the above example.) This is an attack on the concept of obscenity itself, and the tenuous standards of the civility enforcer.
I'm open to other interpretations, but to me it's like this:
Making a discussion PG-13 isn't a sign of maturity, it's the opposite.
I'd like to get philosophical about 'obscenities' for a bit. A mature discussion must include diverse input, or you sacrifice the benefit of a diverse group.
I think it's unproductive to try to sanitize discourse by removing hyperbole or perceived obscenity. Such 'civil' exchanges leave the idea of 'obscene' an open variable, ready to take whatever shape the accuser wishes to vilify. The very concept becomes a censorship device. I think many people see the hypocrisy inherent and intentionally evoke obscenity while maintaining their salient points.(At work in the above example.) This is an attack on the concept of obscenity itself, and the tenuous standards of the civility enforcer.
I'm open to other interpretations, but to me it's like this: Making a discussion PG-13 isn't a sign of maturity, it's the opposite.