Is my theory on why censorship is wrong correct?

So, I have next to no aca­demic knowl­edge. I have liter­ally not read or per­haps even picked up any book since eighth grade, which is where my for­mal ed­u­ca­tion ended, and I turn 20 this year, but I am sit­ting on some the­o­ries per­tain­ing to my un­der­stand­ing of ra­tio­nal­ity, and pro­cras­ti­nat­ing about ex­press­ing them has got­ten me here. I’d like to just pro­pose my the­ory on why cen­sor­ship is wrong, here. Please tell me whether or not you agree or dis­agree, and feel free to ex­press any­thing else you feel you would like to in this thread. I miss bona fide ar­gu­ment, but this com­mu­nity seems way less hos­tile than the one com­mu­nity I was in­volved in el­se­where....

Also, I feel I should af­firm again that my aca­demic knowl­edge is al­most en­tirely just not there… I know the LessWrong com­mu­nity has a ton of re­sources they turn to and in­dulge in, which is more or less a bible of ra­tio­nal­ity by which you all abide, but I have read or heard of none of it. I don’t mean to offend you with my willful ig­no­rance. Sorry. Also, sorry for pos­si­bly in­cor­po­rat­ing similes and stuff into my ex­pres­sion… I know many out there are on the autis­tic spec­trum and can’t com­pre­hend it so I’ll try to stop do­ing that un­less I’m mak­ing a point.

Okay, so, since the fol­low­ing has been both­er­ing me a lot since I joined this site yes­ter­day and even made me think against ti­tling this what I want, con­sider the writ­ten and spo­ken word. Hu­mans liter­ally de­cided as a species to se­quence scrib­bles and mouth noises in an en­tirely ar­bi­trary way, as­cribe emo­tion to their ar­bi­trary scrib­bles and mouth noises, and then claim, as a species, that very spe­cific ar­bi­trary scrib­bles and mouth noises are in­her­ent evil and not to be ex­pressed by any hu­man. Isn’t that fuck­ing re­tarded?

I know what you may be think­ing. You might be think­ing, “wow, this hoofwall char­ac­ter just fuck­ing wrote a fuck­ing ar­bi­trary scrib­ble that my species has ar­bi­trar­ily claimed to be in­her­ent evil with­out first for­mally af­firm­ing, ab­solutely, that the ar­bi­trary scrib­ble he ut­tered could never be in­her­ent evil and that writ­ing it could never in it­self do any harm. This dude ob­vi­ously has no in­ter­est in suc­cess­fully defend­ing him­self in ar­gu­ment”. But fuck that. This is not the same as mur­der­ing a hu­man and try­ing to con­ceive an ex­cuse defend­ing the act later. This is not the same as effect­ing the world in any way that has been es­tab­lished to be detri­men­tal and then try­ing to defend the act later. This is liter­ally se­quenc­ing the very let­ters of the very lan­guage the hu­man has de­cided they are okay with and will use to ex­press them­selves in such a way that it re­minds the in­doc­tri­nated and con­di­tioned hu­man of emo­tion they ir­ra­tionally as­cribe to the se­quence of let­ters I wrote. This is pos­si­bly the purest ar­gu­ment con­ceiv­able for demon­strat­ing su­perfluity in the hu­man world, and the hu­man psy­che. There could never be an in­her­ent cor­re­la­tion to one’s emo­tion­al­ity and an ar­bi­trary se­quence of mouth noises or scrib­bles or what­ever have you that ex­ist en­tirely in­de­pen­dent of the hu­man. If one were to erase an ar­bi­trary scrib­ble that the hu­man ir­ra­tionally as­cribes emo­tion to, the hu­man will still have the ca­pac­ity to feel the emo­tion the ar­bi­trary scrib­ble roused within them. The scrib­ble is not liter­ally the em­bod­i­ment of emo­tion­al­ity. This is why cen­sor­ship is re­tarded.

Mind you, I do not dis­crim­i­nate against literal re­tards, or blacks, or gays, or any­thing. I do, how­ever, in­cor­po­rate the words “re­tard”, “nig­ger”, and “fag­got” into my vo­cab­u­lary liter­ally ex­clu­sively be­cause it trig­gers hu­mans and demon­strates the fact that the val­idity of one’s ar­gu­ment and one’s abil­ity to defend them­selves in ar­gu­ment does not mat­ter to the hu­man. I have at times pro­posed my en­tire ar­gu­ment, ac­tu­ally go­ing so far to quan­tify the breadth of this uni­verse as I per­ceive it, the hu­man ex­is­tence, emo­tion­al­ity, and right and wrong be­fore even ut­ter­ing a fuck­damn swear, but it didn’t mat­ter. Hu­mans think plug­ging their ears and chant­ing a mantra of “lalala” some­how gives them­selves a valid ar­gu­ment for their bul­lshit, but what­ever. Affirm­ing how ir­ra­tional the hu­man is is a waste of time. There are other forms of cen­sor­ship I shout ad­dress, as well, but I sup­pose not be­fore propos­ing what I per­ceive the breadth of ev­ery­thing less fun­da­men­tal than the hu­man to be.

It’s prob­a­bly very easy to de­duce the fol­low­ing, but noth­ing can be proven to ex­ist. Also, please do bear with my what are prob­a­bly ar­gu­ment by as­ser­tion fal­la­cies at the mo­ment… I plan on defend­ing my­self be­fore this post ends.

Any opinion any hu­man con­ceives is just a con­se­quence of their own per­cep­tion, the likes of which ap­pears to be a con­se­quence of their phys­i­cal form, the likes of which is a con­se­quence of prop­er­ties in this uni­verse as we per­ceive it. We can­not prove our uni­verse’s ex­is­tence be­yond what we have ac­cess to in our uni­verse as we per­ceive it, there­fore we can­not prove that we ex­ist. We can’t prove that our un­der­stand­ing of ex­is­tence is true ex­is­tence; we can only prove, within our uni­verse, that cer­tain things ap­pear to be in con­cur­rence with the laws of this uni­verse as we per­ceive it. We can pro­pose for ex­am­ple that an ap­ple we can see oc­cu­pies space in this uni­verse, but we can’t prove that our uni­verse ac­tu­ally ex­ists be­yond our un­der­stand­ing of what ex­is­tence is. We can’t go more fun­da­men­tal than what com­poses our uni­verse… We can’t go up if we are mu­tu­ally ex­clu­sive with the very idea of “up”, or are an in­fe­rior con­se­quence of “up” which is su­pe­rior to us.

I re­ally don’t re­mem­ber what else I would say af­ter this but, I guess, with­out di­vulging how much I ob­sess about break­ing emo­tion­al­ity into a sci­ence, I be­lieve nu­dity can’t be in­her­ent evil ei­ther be­cause it is liter­ally the cause of us, the hu­man, and we are nec­es­sary to be able to per­ceive good and evil in the first place. If hu­mans were not ex­tant to dom­i­nate the world and force it to tend to the end they wanted it to any­thing liv­ing would just live, breed, and die, and noth­ing would be in­her­ently “good” or “evil”. It would just be. Un­til some­thing evolved if it would to gain the ca­pac­ity to force dis­tinc­tions be­tween “good” and “evil” there would be no such con­structs. We have no rea­son to be­lieve there would be. I don’t know how I can af­firm that fur­ther. If nu­dity- and ex­clu­sively hu­man nu­dity, mind you- were to be con­sid­ered in­her­ent evil that would mean that the hu­man is in­her­ent evil, that ev­ery­thing the hu­man per­ceives is is in­her­ent evil and that the hu­man’s un­der­stand­ing of “ra­tio­nal­ity” is just a poor, grossly-mis­led at­tempt at cop­ing with the evil prop­er­ties that they re­tain and is in­her­ently worth­less. Which I ac­tu­ally be­lieve, but an opinion that con­trary is liter­ally sa­tanism and fuck me if I think I’m go­ing to be ex­pound­ing all of that here. But fun­da­men­tally, hu­man nu­dity can­not be in­her­ent evil if the hu­man’s opinions are to be con­sid­ered worth any­thing at all, and if you want to go less fun­da­men­tal than that and ap­proach it from a “but nu­dity makes me feel bad” stand­point, you can sim­ply warp your per­cep­tion of the world to force see­ing or oth­er­wise be­ing re­minded of things to be cor­re­lated to cer­tain emo­tion within you. I’m autis­tic it seems so I ob­sess about break­ing emo­tion­al­ity down to a sci­ence ev­ery day but this isn’t the post to be talk­ing about shit like that. In any case, you can’t prove that the act of you see­ing an­other hu­man naked is literal evil, so fuck you and your worth­less opinions.

Yeah… I don’t know what else I could say here, or if cen­sor­ship ex­ists in forms other than pre­vent­ing hu­mans from be­ing ex­posed to hu­man nu­dity, or hu­man-con­ceived words. I should prob­a­bly as­sert as well that I be­lieve the hu­man’s think­ing that the in­her­ent evil of hu­man nu­dity some­how be­comes okay to see when a hu­man reaches the age of 18, or 21, or 16, or 12 de­pend­ing on which sub­set of hu­man you ask is re­tarded. Also, by “re­tarded” I do not liter­ally mean “re­tarded”. I use the word as a trig­ger word that’s meant to em­body and con­vey bad emo­tion the hu­man de­cides they want to feel when they’re ex­posed to it. This en­tire post is drip­ping with the gross­est mis­an­thropy but I’m in­ter­ested in see­ing what the re­sponses to this are… By the way, if you just down­vote me with­out ex­press­ing to me what you think I’m do­ing wrong, as far as I can tell you are just satis­fied with vaguely mas­tur­bat­ing your dis­sent­ing opinion you care not for even defin­ing in my di­rec­tion, so, what­ever makes you sleep at night, if you do that… but you’re wrong though, and I would ar­gue that to the death.