First they came for the swears . . .
We should be very concerned about a precedent where we adapt or censor potentially objectionable content.Next is content not in alignment with the schools ideologies or politics, for what is essential to a work?
These aren't abstract tin-foil hat concerns either: In 1982 Texas banned a geography textbook for mentioning evolution [1]. Publishers are financially incentivized to publish. These mechanisms enable those in power to control the information presented to children and students to suit their agendas (even while their own children attend private schools not subject to their decisions).
>According to Time magazine, the list of the most banned books of all time include . . . “Brave New World,” by Aldous Huxley; “1984,” by George Orwell
We should be pretty uptight about censorship.
https://ncse.com/cej/3/4/censorship-evolution-texas
https://www.webjunction.org/documents/webjunction/Censorship...
"The F word." "The N Word." "Eff that." "Effed in the A." "They want the D." "That scene was hot af."
Pick a better word, or demonstrate your lacking vocabulary. But the self-censorship makes one sound like a tool.
You'd get a better reaction saying, 'They want the orange dust-encrusted phallus.'
Perhaps you can provide an example where increases in censorship do not make it easier for the types of problems listed above to occur, a place where the misuse of power is unheard of.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope#Non-fallacious_...
And it's not like the swearing is in any way essential to the work. You're not destroying a great work of literature by replacing "fuck" with "crap." So while I agree we shouldn't be so uptight about swears, I'd say we also shouldn't be so uptight about removing them here.