When used under the pretense of expressionism its an excuse to behave poorly. Obviously, its expressing anger. But when coupled with such an elitist term of expressionism its grabbing at straws for a validity.
Free speech has its limits and bounds. Yes, the American constitution grants people the use of opinions without the fear of imprisonment or punishment. But private organizations, such as AG for a prime example, have rules and regulations for which they wish to operate their site. If they firmly express certain rules they are at liberty to exercise those rights without the government intruding.
But this isn't about 1st Amendment rights or the limiting thereof. This is about every day, talking to friends, family, and colleagues. The OP (original poster) is asking whether its expressionism or unnecessary; and I'm siding quite strong that its unnecessary. Whereas the counter argument could be considered as free rein for any situation. e.g. Graffiti is argued to be expressionism but rightfully so its straight vandalism. Regardless if its scribbles of someone's name or something very beautiful; without prior consent its destruction of property; private or public.
Conclusion to expressionism. Its art. Not some slaw-jaw hick swearing every other words towards his ma', pa', children, cat, and dog because its "how he is." Its piss poor at most.
@pangtongshu
Because not caring can also be very beneficial
I agree, but you took my comments out of context. You described figures that changed the world. Not people who "donna care 'bout wat peeps think; i do whatever, i do what i want."
There is a clear distinction between your list and my list and you know that. Let's take MLK Jr. for example because you mentioned him. He gave speeches in suit and tie, clean and pressed clothes. He didn't go around giving speeches or support groups swear left and right in his night ware, under ware, or a graphic T which sported "***** rapz" in gold embroidery. He acted professionally and utilized respect.
*
I won't get into his dark side because it's not the point.Obviously people swear. Obviously people swear more when around their friends. Its happens I understand that. But the topic has moved so far from the OP's discussion. I'm going to quote it again and start from there.
As you probably have found out AG does not allow you to swear and it blocks out the words in replace with asterisks. Although this might be what AG is trying to do you can bypass this very easily.
Anyway, what is your opinion? Do you think AG and grow up? Most 12 year olds see more swearing at school than they would if swearing was unblocked on a forum, is there really a point? On the other hand though swearing is just unnecessary and it might be best to get away from it as much as possible.
I personally think swearing is unnecessary but I believe it shouldn't be blocked.
He's suggesting that because AG doesn't allow profanity that it should "grow up"? (maybe that's not what he meant, he kind of dropped the ball on that idea.)
So he agrees that it is unnecessary but that it shouldn't be blocked. Well, that's a contradiction.
I support AG and their blacklist of words and phrases. Its their choice and quite frankly, just because you hear and say profanity "everywhere" does not make it now, O.K. Not to mention, America is a fast declining country in terms of education. And its not because teachers are paid like they should be. Its because the American people don't value literacy or education to be top priority. There's something to be said about the human race. Yes we are animals, mammals, homosapiens, we are sentient beings. Out of all creation on earth we managed to construct abstractions such as mathematics and written and spoken languages. And the fact that some people would rather lower themselves to the grunts and squeals of a chimpanzee is in the least to say, disappointing.
As a human we should be bettering ourselves and not falling to the lowest common denominator of petty filth-strung sentences.
TLDR: Learn to read.
