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 suppose i don't see the point.
The reader knows what you censored either way, so by using the words and then censoring them you don't achieve your implied preference for reducing vulgarity in communication (so it might be more impactful and irregular when applied) at all.
Anyone who reads "forking shut" knows what you are writing there in reality. Kinda feels to me like putting on censored porn to make it family friendly, that's not working. Either watch a family movie, or some actual porn in private.
The only reasonable course of action would be to avoid vulgarity and those stand-ins for it completely in your communication.
The reasoning is irrelevant. Those are the words the person is choosing to use, and no one is in any way negatively affected by it.
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".
Look man, you can say potato means underwear all you want, but if you start saying you're wearing potato under your pants people are going to look at you weird. You are not the only party involved in communication, and thus your preferences are only part of the equation, and people will interpret and process your words based on conventions, not just your personal thoughts on the matter.