This is ridiculous. If you don't know the difference between common sense and repsecting others, and being a selfish prick, kill yourself and do humanity a favor.

That's well and fine to a point. But if you are out in public, you have a little responsibility to act in a certain manner. You go to a library or movie, it is considered polite, not to talk. Keep talking and you will probably be shushed by someone. Ignore those shushes and you will likely be asked to leave. Refuse to leave and you will be likely removed by local authorities. Same thing goes in WoW. People pay good money to enjoy their entertainment. If you are simply saying "bad words" in /saychat, Blizzard will probably not do much. You start spewing bad words in /1 or /2 and you might get a ban. Keep doing it and you might get a permanent ban. You can chose to brush words off all you want, it's what the majority of society deems offensive that matters. Sorry. You don't like it, live in a cave or on an island somewhere.

"I'm of the opinion that if you use the Internet, then you're going to be exposed to sentences that might offend you. Deal with that."

I would take it one step further...if you live in the real world, then you're going to be exposed to ideas and actions that might offend you. Deal with that.

As I said in the previous article on this topic, the world is not a nice place, no matter how much we might wish it to be, or rationalize that it should be. (The internet is merely a microcosm of this.) How far you will go in life, and what kinds of opportunities you will have presented to you are very much relevant to your ability to function and persevere in the face of what can be incredible ugliness.

The role of censorship is to protect those who cannot, or do not wish to, deal with the realities of the world. It does have its place. But to try to enforce it on society at large is not only patently insulting, but also a fool's errand. You cannot change the ugly side of human nature.

@noyou

Being loud during a movie is a terrible example for what we're talking about here because that's unavoidable disturbance. If I was able to simple stop hearing, and seeing any action a person was doing in a theater, then why should the action they are doing that I can no longer be affected by in anyway whatsoever be illegal?

These are words. If you don't like it put a person on ignore. If they go around the ignore to continue harassing you, then it should be against the rules. People feel they have some special right to stop anyone from doing things they deem "offensive", and frankly that's just unacceptable behavior. If someone is not causing you direct inconvenience, or direct harm, then you can ignore it, and protect your delicate little sensibilities.

@Noyou:

"You can chose to brush words off all you want, it's what the majority of society deems offensive that matters. Sorry. You don't like it, live in a cave or on an island somewhere."

Serious question for you: if there are two ways to censor, by either A) controlling what can be said or done, or by B) controlling what you expose yourself to, why is the predominant opinion of those who favor censorship that option A is the correct one?

To wit: if I am listening to the radio, and a message I find offensive is broadcast, I can A) turn off the radio or tune to another station, or B) petition the government to enforce standards of broadcast decency. Which is the easier, least costly, least invasive option? Option A) - hands down. Yet, in America, we've gone with option B. Why? Because to some who are offended by ideas and actions, merely removing themselves is not enough; they need to *control* the behavior. They need to ensure that actions are taken to hinder or outright deny messages that they do not wish to be heard.

The problem with this is that some messages SHOULD be heard, no matter how offensive we may find them. There are times we must become offended enough to act. There are times when exposure to ideas we once considered offended help us see them in a new light and realize that the idea isn't nearly as offensive as we may once have believed. And this is the inherent problem with broad, legislated censorship, that we never have the opportunity to lift our own self-imposed veil of censorship and really tune in to what is being said. Instead, we have to rely on someone else choosing what we are permitted to hear, someone who is merely "looking out for our best interests."

TLDR: The profanity filter is there for a reason: you can turn in on and off at your choice. But to demand that everyone restrict (or have restricted for them) behaviors that you personally deem offensive, goes beyond censorship and into tyranny.

The point I was trying to make is that in certain situations there is a reasonable protocol to follow. In public, in certain societies, etc. To simply just say, "deal with it" or "brush it off" is a little inconsiderate.

Sarah Bee, what justifies the behavior? The fact that (apparently) everybody else is doing it? Do we really need to have the bandwagons and peer pressure conversation?