I don't think the standards are impossible. I'm not even saying we should all agree. I'm saying the network should be consistent in how it applies them. "No offensive words are okay." "All offensive words are okay." Both of these standards are easily defensible.

As I said, I faced a similar dilemma when writing this article. I censor the n-word by default because a substantial portion of my readership is black and I know the word is really upsetting to some black people. So even though I personally think censoring it is silly, I do it. But then, how do I justify not censoring another word that some other people might find upsetting? I can't. So I censored that one too.

Some would argue that this leads to a slippery slope of expurgated words and I can totally see that. If their stance were "this silliness needs to stop. I'm not censoring anything," I'd easily be able to respeect that.

Somebody is going to be offended whatever you do. That's unavoidable and, in my opinion, totally fine. The question is whether you can reasonably justify causing that offence, and whether you apply a consistent standard. Again, the joke highlights how the network failed to do either of these things.