:lol2:

Oh boy... this isn't going to be easy...

u should write less gooder about good point when having so teh people read it and dont use any punctashun either cuz then your wrong also

srsly tho
 

I've said it before, and it continues to be true more often than not:
if you can't figure out how to state an idea clearly, then you probably don't have a clear idea to begin with.

That appertains only to spoken language, as the ability to come up with independant thought and the ability to communicate in speech are both natural, or inherent skills. Writing (grammar rules, spelling rules, punctuation etc.) is not a natural skill, it is an invented system. You can have no literacy at all and have wonderful ideas.

I really wanted to discuss the two points I brought up elsewhere.
I'm torn about this: I hate censorship and as an artist I feel that taking words and images that harm and making them "common", comical and twisting them into the vernacular takes away their power to harm and that in them that does harm.
However, there is something else to consider, something I know to be true because I come from a place and family that has many this is true for.
Their harm is based on an assumption(s) and the more they hear what they interpret as common acceptance of their way of thinking... and when they hear "you my nigga'" and "that was so gay" to them it is an endorsement of their way of thinking, every time, no matter the intent or presumed innocence of the usage.
It is a statement of the common acceptance of their belief system. They feel that others just don't want to "admit it" aloud and that they are the shock troops for the majority of the masses.
In doing so, those practicing this are complacent in any future actions taken by those who use this attitude to validate said actions.
Due to that I choose not to use these words because I do not wish to risk this.
However, I also feel the first is true and have no issue when seeing it in art.
It is a dichotomy and one I have yet to resolve.
Again, I would greatly appreciate any input and discussion.

censorship, as much as i hate to say it, is very appropriate in some, certain, few situations. School, for instance. The school has a right - a duty - to stop hate speech, because a school must be a safe environment for the students.

However, city-wide censorship... no.

Everyone's definition of hate speech is different, so none of it is.
Disruptive activities should be discouraged... placing moral currency on it is wrong.

Students calling eachother 'nigger', 'fag', whatever, any of that, is harmful to a school atmosphere... and the students should be punished appropriately.

Educated appropriately.

Educated with bars of soap in the mouth.