So those are good points, but I think you're missing the meaning of the term 'Principled' possibly given distraction by the examples that I gave. We can make p

So those are good points, but I think you're missing the meaning of the term 'Principled' possibly given distraction by the examples that I gave. We can make populist, emotional, political, purely rational and technical appeals, but 'principled' is the approach that I believe should be taken. It shouldn't even be remotely controversial to say that. While 'Blue' is less subjective that 'Guilty' we have 'Principled' ways of assessing those things outside the context of hyperbole. While 'guilty' has much more broad meaning that simply the notion of 'legal guilt' as you're implying, even within that context we can absolutely make objective determination (or try to) given legal parameters aka: Murder is illegal, we have a video of a man shooting someone and killing them, he's admitted to doing it ergo -> he is 'guilty' in a very objective sense. A 'principled' approach would involve trying to assess if there's material objectivity to the degree something is offensive, weighing the gravity of the change, listening to those who are personally aggrieved and trying to determine why, contextualizing the information and making an assessment etc.. An 'unprincipled' approach would be making a decision that appealed so some kind of populist emotion, virtue signalling (in either direction), placating the powerful, ignoring facts, appeasing the loudest voices, doing what 'Twitter' is pressuring to do, caving to threats, applying oddball ideologies, over representing or poorly contextualizing information etc..