Stating that the other candidate rapes children is not criticism. It is a baseless accusation of a heinous crime. It is not free speech, it’s an incitement. If there is no sense of decorum or decency in any forum, discussion or debate, there can be no meaningful communication.
Communication? Who gets to determine which word actually communicates thought? If I read the word and understand it, the writer has gotten through. If you read it and find it offensive, the writer has gotten through, again.
A keyword is not much different than a posting. Should postings have to be approved by you, Reaganesque?
How far will you go? Will BOZO set you off as a keyword? I’m not trying to bait you, it’s a legitimate question. Which keywords are appropriate, and do they apply to ALL threads?
I mean, MITTBOT might offend you, when added to a thread that you posted about Mitt Romney’s failures in Massachusettes. Does this mean if MITTBOT is also offensive when put on a vanity thread that you put up where you might mention you just contributed to Romney’s campaign, and you wish others to do so? In the later case, would you ignore the addition of the keyword or not? Because it is a thread that supports your candidate you might just not bother. But if it is an article that tears Romney to shreds, are you going to ask for its removal?
Isn’t the issue here that YOU support Romney and don’t want dissension?
So you're saying that because of that keyword, there's a bunch of pedophiles here that are now excited? :)