If the 'cuss' words didn't have deeper meanings we wouldn't use them. If these words DIDN'T have a history and an original intent to be offensive, there would be no issue.
This is totally untrue for many words, including, "fuck," which was a socially acceptable word. Research the history of it and you will find that it was a bunch of non-English speakers who dictated that it was a verbal pariah because of class structure. It stuck, and the rest is history. A lot of this "profanity" bolderdash comes from religious zealots who want to dictate their morality upon the public, and certain classes within society wanting to dictate their moral "norms" upon the working and poorer classes, the so-called, "unenlightened." In fact, the religious silliness that is used as a cultural bar, was often propagated by the rich minority - usually an aristocracy - upon the poorer classes.
Most cussing had relatively innocent origins and once the cultural enforcers - aristocrats, theological terrorists, foreign invaders, and so on - sank their claws into the language and raped it, things were never the same.
To say they are merely words or random collections of letters is to negate the power of language - what we are supposed to be teaching every day. 
I don't think anyone is saying that. Inversely, the attributes of the words are given their power by the listener just as much as the user. There is context. That is what presents intent and gives greater meaning to any word.
I think the issue here is more, rather than less, a minority wanting to lay their morality upon a majority who do not share it. As a result, it is problematic because the majority who can get over the silliness of certain words and have the tolerance to see the message for the sum total of its words rather than linger on the very rare usage of what some might deem, "offensive" vocabulary, and thus miss the message because they are to attached to a moral high horse rather than grounded in reality.
With one exception that was dealt with very quickly, I haven't seen a plethora of racial epithets tossed around here. If such words were slung about with abandon, then I'd be able to see the cause for concern. The same would apply to profanity used in a hostile manner and the mods wanting it to be toned down because the impetus of this site was to provide what saps like Sperling clearly were incapable of doing: an informative, colorful, fun place to post regarding our lives in China, especially for those of us teaching our butts off.
I am making an assumption here, but if a vocal minority who cannot deal with the diversity and realities of the English language are upset, why should the majority have to walk on egg shells when the consensus is that things have not digressed into Raoul's Cuss-o-Rama? When societies bend to the vocal minority who demanded changes that actually trampled freedom of expression rather than protected, nurtured and encouraged it - well, heck, most of us can turn on the television or try to surf to youtube at the moment and see what happens when that becomes the norm. Stifling the raucous few* for the sake of grown adults incapable of ignoring words that are not personal attacks upon them nor their character: it's the same kind of fragile ego syndrome we have to contend with on the job, regarding China. Do we, as mature adults, need to police ourselves for the same thing on the saloon?
I present that as fuel for meditation.
What we are looking at isn't so much censorship, but an agreed set of norms for a community. Any community establishes these norms. Your own homes will have actions and ideas that are censored - no spitting on the floor, don't discuss the war eg. Being part of a community implies that we do care about others reactions to things.
Clearly, by voting alone, the community has spoken, and at this moment, they agree that there isn't an issue. So, I guess we've resolved the matter? As for respect towards the community, isn't being mature enough to ignore cussing by a minority of users an act of respect? "To each their own," you know what I mean?
Here we have already established a few 'no go' areas of discussion because we have people who have diametrically opposing ideas and in promoting those ideas, can offend others.
Positing this idea in a public forum - we need to remember this isn't a public forum like a park, but a public forum presented by a private entity. As such, they have final say and we have to follow it or hit the road. So, applying your quote in the context of a public space owned by the general public: where do you draw the line? Where do you draw the line when the sensitivity of a minority of people is given credence? I am of the opinion that the line is drawn when it infringes upon the individual's rights. No one is forcing them to read the words that offend them, however, their demands are forcing people to censor themselves. When the good natured gestures of fraternity are used to "harmonize" written speech, then it is not respect but a step that treads down a path that could easily lead to oppression on a large scale, or, in the case of something less dramatic, like a message board: a bland, uninteresting, sterile, counterproductive place... Just like the cafe
So if we already have areas (IDEAS and beliefs) where we do not want to offend others, why are we feeling censored by asking people not to use words that were INTENDED to be offensive?
Because the context of the words and how they are used is not offensive! Because we can skip what offends us and move on to what appeals to us without forcing others to mollycoddle us. Really.
And as pointed out - we can create many other ways of expressing feelings.
we can also let people be and ignore things. We can also look at the context of the usage and focus on the message as a whole in and of itself, rather than become myopic charlatans who focus on the individual parts, often removing the "offending" words from context.
Looking at the stats on the vote: could people not create ways of coping with very real, very valid, very creative words that might bother them, but clearly not the majority? Could they just grow up and learn to deal with it? Are they so selfish that they must force a majority to restrict themselves further, especially when this is a haven where we have the freedom to express ourselves in ways we cannot in our daily lives?
We're not talking trolling or liable or hate speech. We're talking about the occasional cuss word. We are not talking about cussing diatribes but the freedom to occasionally say, "fuck it."
What is being debated here, are a minority of individuals who are incapable of overlooking occasional cussing that is often not thrown around in the public forums with hostility towards fellow members, versus people who are not making personal insults or attacks with their sparse use of cussing, and their freedom to express themselves without fear of recrimination and oppression for the sake of a handful of people too small minded to overlook the words.
We are, in effect, saying "It's my right to say what I want. So stuff your prudish mind."
Or, in effect, we are saying, "boo hoo, I can't be mature enough to ignore a few words so I want the world to revolve around my fragile psyche. I want everyone to live by my moral compass and if they don't I'm going to throw a tantrum."
In life there are times when the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many, but this is not one of them. That's my take.
Poll