And do you really think that using the Olde English spelling of the word ‘bullshyte’ is in some way less offensive than typing the modern version ? The gist and connotation are clear, the modern day version no different, and the tenor is the same. There’s zero ambiguity. If, by your reasoning, BFD is acceptable, then typing the initialism 'ef-u' would be equally acceptable. It isn't. None of them are.
Short answer: ban all offensive terminology, whether it be the written word or a thinly disguised provocation - spare me the 'euphemistic deformation' bit, and let's leave out both lexical semantics and the sanctimonious babble.
Exactly. And you can be more offensive with attitude than by using 'naughty' words.
I usually tend to save 'bad' language for the hitting one's thumb with a hammer type scenario, then I find it very useful and cathartic indeed. Use it all the time and it simply gets boring. But I find it utterly baffling that people even get offended by a word. It's just a sound, it cannot harm you in any way. Even dafter is when a word [or sound] which is fine when say describing a male bird is somehow then rude if taking about part of a man. Bonkers. Particularly that an arbitrary part of your anatomy can be offensive and other bits are just fine and dandy. But obviously not dangly!
As I mentioned above on the local city forum for my area, swearing or masked swearing such as BFD is treated the same. The reason, there is no difference, because the meaning is exactly the same.