Talk:Derpy/@comment-76.250.36.103-20120309201206/@comment-76.250.36.103-20120309232210

By those examples I only intended to demonstrate that the only place where derp(y) is offensive is in the mind of the perceiver. Therefore a position of being offended by derp(y) as a word is no more provable than a position of being not-offended by derp(y) as a word.

By "an edit that endorses being offended" I mean that by editing this scene Hasbro has acknowledged that there was a need to edit. Otherwise obviously they would not have spent the money and effort to edit. I propose that they edited because some people were personally offended. Therefore this edit endorses,ie justifies the position of being offended by the original version. There are other possible causes. Maybe they just edit things randomly with no regard for anything other than cosmic chaos. Unlikely. Maybe they were threatened by legal action such as a discrimination lawsuit....although if you accept the previous examples of a complete lack of physical evidence I find that legally impossible, since you would be entering anti-discrimination court with no evidence except your feelings and a made-up word.

PS I am not trying to hijack your wiki, if you would prefer another venue please advise.