Hmmm... considering it was this answer (and others for that same question) that prompted the question, I'll leave the edit to your discretion. But with the caveat of BESW's answer and Mxy's trawling.

@mxyzplk There's a WORLD of excluded middle in your examples there.

@wraith808 I context, I'm going to stand by what I've written; it's a mild intensifier that's part of a discussion about fictional rape at the gaming table. However, I don't mind other users editing my stuff. Improve away!

@AlexP - As an aside to that (or any) examples, think about it in terms of need, audience, and the restriction of the usability of your answer as it might be lessened by your inclusion, where another intensifier may have been used. Is there not another intensifier that might not have denoted the same thing without being exclusive? And if you think not, might this not have been the case for a visit to a thesaurus? What you consider mild may not be so to others, and for the sensitive nature of such a question and the answer, such considerations don't seem out of line. Food for thought.

@wraith808 The gist of my post is: does this kind of word choice actually and substantively affect usability? The justifications hang way too much on hypothetical firewalls and hypothetical people.

If you think only "hypothetical people" are offended by obscenity you need to get out more.

@mxyzplk Calling run-of-the-mill cusses "obscenity" is shifting goal posts, Mxy.

If you think only hypothetical people are offended by the major curse words that are e.g. on the FCC list, then. I've been in many a business environment where someone got coaching that using a lot of that in a business environment is inappropriate because it offends people and doesn't help get across any valid point you have. Same deal here.

@AlexP - you made good points in this answer which apply similarly here. If one is offended by content in a game and are driven away by it, then might one be offended by content in an answer and be driven away by it? Do no harm seems to be the consensus in both... or neither. I wasn't offended by the content in that answer. But you were. You weren't offended by the profanity. But I was. Does that make either less relevant? Or both more relevant?

@wraith808 Slurs exist to attack and demonize other people. The reason one shouldn't use pejoratives isn't that they "drive people away from good points," it's that it's wrong to demonize people, period. Run-of-the-mill cusses see widespread everyday use among English speakers, and even in the media, where censorship tends to be inconsistent or pro-forma (let's mute half of a vowel sound!). They're not inherently hostile. Both the role of the words in the language, the intent behind their usage, and the underlying sentiments they reinforce are entirely different.

There were no slurs in the other answer. It was a difference in opinion as to the content. But this was merely meant as food for thought, as you'd not seemingly thought of that approach. If you don't want to take it into account, then that's your prerogative. The points have been made- and the community will decide.

Shrug. You brought up slurs in direct analogy. I don't know why.

@AlexP - I did not bring up slurs in direct analogy. I said content. Content doesn't equal slurs in any thesaurus I know of. Looking back over my comments, I do see that I said slur at one point. It seems that in order not to get the point of the argument, you're nitpicking?

@wraith808 "Just as using a slur drives people away from good points, so does profanity" is the exact thing you wrote to sum up your point. If that's not what you meant, that's cool, but I have no way of knowing that, y'know? The comments are really too short to make secondary points unrelated to the main thrust of your argument (one of their benefits, really).

@AlexP - In the latter part of the above comment, I say that I did say slur at one point. How about ignoring that one point and responding to the fact that the situations are pretty similar and all of the rest of the the conversation? Again, it's just food for thought.

@wraith808 Okay, here goes (it's much the same comment, actually). Stereotyping, cultural appropriation, "othering" behavior/content in general are hostile acts because they deny the dignity and personhood of other people. Even if I'm doing it unconsciously or in a "well-meaning" (yeah, right) way. The kind of talk that ends up on grognards.txt all the time is a hostile act because it's explicitly about dismissing and attacking other people - women, non-cishet people, people who like a different game, &c. All of that talk is about reinforcing "This is my clubhouse and it's not for you..."

@wraith808 ... Typing "sh--" into a textbox isn't like that at all. Sure, some people don't like swears even when they're the ones in widespread use every day! Some people get upset when you end a sentence with a preposition. Some people get ticked off when the answers to questions keep assuming you're playing D&D just because (in this case, "some people" is me! all the time!). Some people find the fleshy skull-robots in the site banner kinda gross, I'm sure. These are preferences...

@AlexP - There are those that don't view it in the same manner, there are minors on the site, and if it doesn't substantially alter the question to use it (per the comment above), then why not err on the side of not using it. And on the other- again, that's a judgement call also. Everyone doesn't view such things in the same way that you do- even in the targeted racial demographic. That's why I said, it was left to do no harm. But I think this horse was dead long ago. As I said, it's food for thought, and I will leave it where I should have left it when I said that before.

@wraith808 ... There is a GIANT CHASM of difference between stuff that I don't like for whatever reason (including reasons like "I think it's tasteless" or "I was raised not to like it") and stuff that exists to dehumanize me and tell me I'm unworthy and unwelcome. There's nothing inherently better about using cusses sometimes or policing them like a hawk. I find the whole analogy deeply distasteful, to be honest.

Even for meta, this comment thread is passing usefulness. Write/edit an answer and make your points there please...

@mxyzplk There was a "move to chat" button but it disappeared when you posted your comment for some reason.

Doesn't matter. I'm done. As I was before. Food for thought and all. Thanks.

I still wonder why rules like those of the FCC should be evenly applied to a whole world. Profanity and swear is very differently seen from the pruddish USA TV rules than from everyday's USA streets, but it is not about that. It is about that it is quite differently seen from UK, and very diffrently seen from other places like Spain, Italy, Russia... and there are english-speaking RPG players all around the world. And I'm almost sure (with no data) that RPG.SE is accessed from all over the world, (at least from Hungary it is clear that it is, isn't it?).

@Envite - it's not FCC rules, it's StackExchange rules being applied and debated.

@wraith808 Yes, but it seems these are based on the rules of a specific part of a specific society

@Envite - as any are. Even if it is the view of the community (which is what was being asked) it is the view of a specific part of a specific society. Or a private individual in the case of a private site. That's just the nature of the beast, I think.

Yes, many cultures are represented - so do we say "screw it, let's offend some of them" or shall we try to be polite to all of them? If you have additions to the policy that make it friendlier to some random other culture that's fine.

Just going to say this analysis and explanation is world-class, and i'm considering adding it to my 'difference between swearing as exclamation and attack on an individual or group' resources. Clearly and concisely delineates the differences and places them into context. If there's a wiki for this site, it has my vote to go into it.

@AlexP that codegolf question is now deleted. Not a good example.