[huu]

This is a valid point. I don't really have a response to it other than, I know people like the one I asked y'all to imagine, but I'm having trouble thinking of anyone I know who might fit your imaginary person's description.

You're probably right that this betrays a bias of mine. And you're also probably right that this isn't a great guiding principle for decision-making in the future.

Still, if I'm interested in increasing the total number of people contributing to open source projects, I would give an issue like the use of the word "retard" a fighter's chance.

Maybe it's not worth bending on free speech in some specific cases, but there is a point where it is worth it, ie, if there are enough people in the offended audience that the chance of losing a potential contributor is nontrivial.

[kefka]

When I think of someone who is "offended", I think the following:

"Announcing "I'm offended" is basically telling the world you can't control your emotions, so everyone else should do it for you."

[DanBC]

When I see someone who doesn't care about language I think the following: "I'm too stupid and lazy to use language creatively so I'll fall back on my stupid and lazy language. I can say what I like, and I'm going to try to deny you the same right. Some bollocks about SJWs and Leftists goes here".

[kefka]

Because I'm a supporter of all language, especially hate speech. Or the communist speech back in the 50's. Or Snowden's speech about violations of our government against us.

Banning thoughts and words, as you seem apt to suggest, is how we migrate away from the principles of the 1st amendment. Of course, you will be wont to tell me that a private company isnt bound by them. Indeed.

But where do we stop? It may be vogue to silence the KKK, which is pretty established for hate speech and actions. But what then? Who decides amongst us what hate speech is and isnt? How far do we go down this rabbit hole? The answer is, "We wont" from SCOTUS.

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/freespeech/tp/Hate-Speech-C...

[F]reedom of speech...," Justice William O. Douglas wrote for the 5-4 majority, is "protected against censorship or punishment, unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest ... There is no room under our Constitution for a more restrictive view."

[DanBC]

An americo-centric view. Europe seems to do well with pur limited freedom of expression.

[overpaidgoogler]

When I see someone who doesn't care about language I think the following: "I'm too stupid..."

The ironing.