I do think this is the wrong way to look at this.

Prohibiting slurs is like prohibiting nudity in public parks. You're prohibiting an action so that people don't self-prohibit themselves from visiting.

It starts with words. Then come books, movies, comedy. ”right not to be insulted”… feeling insulted is an emotion. Learn to deal with your emotions.

Yeah, I know… everybody is a winner and what not.

Slippery slope applies to everything.

First they banned murder, then it was punching, next it was looking.

The problem with slippery slope arguments is that you need a slope.

---

The thing you're missing is that it's really a "you" problem. Most people don't go on the internet to read slurs just like they don't go to public parks to look at penises. You want to post slurs and so you want to remove the rules against it. The result is just going to be people not visiting 4chan.

Your slippery slope looks more like a slippery uphill.

If you look up the definition of censorship, you'll find that it is not.

Censorship is suppression.

Insulting someone or discriminating against them is not supression, it's unlawful.

If that's not your cup of tea, I'd challenge you to forego any and all (!) ameneties of modern civilized society to enjoy your anarcho-freedom.

Don't pretend to be a tough one by sitting in a comfy chair and picking the raisins out of the dough.

Well once you bring law into it then you have to be accurate. Insulting someone is almost never unlawful in the US. And discrimination laws apply to specific matters for specific special classes.

> Insulting someone or discriminating against them is not supression, it's unlawful.

It is not, at all, unlawful to insult someone. Your argument is absurd.

You seem to be very confused. Even in countries like the UK with weaker freedom-of-speech laws, there are specific exceptions to slander law for insults.