Zac-
That sucks.
Gotta remember with social media at this point that all these companies have become BIG companies.
And big companies are extremely risk averse. The bigger the company, the more risk-paranoid it becomes.
Right now, the mainstream media is completely aligned behind the fringe of easily-offended people out there. Partly because journalists as a group tend to have a lot of sympathies with these folks; partly because most publications are partly to wholly dependent on outrage to drive clicks and views. That means if you're a big company, rabble-rousers on your site who might potentially inflame some group that might tattle on you (and them) to the media and drive lots of bad press are a liability. It's much easier for them to warn you or boot you just to be safe than it is for them to do nothing and deal with the fallout.
(long-term, this strategy drives alternate channels, which the 'cool people' eventually all move to... and then eventually those alternate channels will overturn the incumbents. The incumbents have ways to prevent this; they can aim to get loads of regulations pass that make creating alternate channels nigh impossible. And the irony is that once the disruptive new channels have upset the incumbents and taken their place, they'll be the new big giants who become risk averse, and start kicking off all the users who made them big in the old and loose days. Never-ending cycle, unfortunately)
So, strategy for social media is "Don't be anything more than 'mainstream edgy'" and you're safe. If you go edgier than what the mainstream approves of, you're a target. The farther you go, the bigger the target you are and the more likelier you are to get warned or booted.
Chase