-13

Phillip just deleted an answer of mine, again, which was both well reasoned, supported, fine in both temperament and jargon. It just reached a conclusion he's uncomfortable with. This is nonsense. Censorship and vindictiveness all because this particular moderator doesn't like where the facts lead. It also received 9 upvotes. Can Phillip step down or be banned as a moderator?

  • And is it too much to ask, maybe it is, to have someone with some professional experience in government be a moderator, rather than another coder? – K Dog Jan 24 '17 at 23:40
  • 5
    Was this the answer where you did little more than call Obama a terrorist sympathizer? You should probably link to the answer (or better yet: include it in this post) so people can judge that when they read this. – Martin Tournoij Jan 24 '17 at 23:52
  • I I didn't call Obama a terrorist sympathizer. I so demonstrated that he's a terrorist sympathizer. I recognize that outrageous claims require significant evidence which was provided – K Dog Jan 25 '17 at 0:09
  • 6
    Well, either way, you should add it to the question so people can judge for themselves, rather than take my word over yours (or vice versa). – Martin Tournoij Jan 25 '17 at 0:10
  • 5
    "It also received 9 upvotes": For completeness you might also want to mention that it received 13 downvotes and two "not an answer" flags. Not mentioning all the negative comments. – Philipp Jan 25 '17 at 9:13
  • 1
    Please either include a link to the deleted answer, or clarify that none exists if indeed none exists. – agc Feb 7 '17 at 6:17
17

Let me answer your question with a question: if I would answer a question with "this is because Jews are evil bastards who faked 9/11 just to make more money", then should such an answer remain on the site?

In my mind, that might be a "fact". I would even provide what I consider to be very convincing evidence for this "fact".

I think – hope – that everyone reading this would strongly disagree and would be in favour of removing this sort of nonsense of the site.

Yet, this is exactly what your answer did. Your answer you presented a very controversial interpretation of events, and the only "evidence" was either conspiratorial ramblings or a deeply misguided reading of events and motivations. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and this was most certainly not that.

You may be right. You may be wrong. I don't care. This site is not your soapbox or your weblog or YouTube comments. There are some standards, and your answer was well below those standards.


It also received 9 upvotes.

Exactly. Should questions become opinion polls? Where one person posts a "conservative" answer and another a "liberal" answer and we see which one "wins"?

The site would degrade in to a partisan pissing contest – also known as YouTube comments. That's not what I signed up for, that's not what most of us signed up for. I came here exactly to avoid that sort of drama. It would also mean that this site would be shut down by Stack Exchange, as they would (rightfully) consider the dramafest to be dysfunctional.

And is it too much to ask, maybe it is, to have someone with some professional experience in government be a moderator, rather than another coder?

Judge people on their actions, not some personal trait. Any reasonably neutral moderator would have done exactly the same, regardless of their background.


Honestly, I see very little evidence of "liberal bias", not on the site in whole, and certainly not in removing this question.

What I do see are some people – primarily you – who are hell-bent on injecting their own viewpoint on damn near every question they take an interest in and insist on using this site as some sort of general discussion forum.
It doesn't matter whose opinion is "right" here; the problem is that many of these topics are controversial and have multiple valid viewpoints. But you present them in a very one-sided manner as "facts" and then attempt to prove these "facts" (which is exactly what you did with your Obama-supports-terrorists answer). That's just soapboxing. Nothing you say or do here will make these topics any less controversial.

In addition you are disrespectful and frankly just rude towards anyone who has a different viewpoint. Your arrogance in insisting that you – and you alone – has the correct opinion (or "facts", as you call them) is just staggering.

Hell, I just had to flag another comment of yours:

If I were to answer this subjectively as an advocate, I would have said that butt-hurt liberals are looking for a win, any win, after being crushed in November to assuage their wounded pride.

Butt-hurt liberals? Really? I've also seen "braindead liberals", claims that liberals support cop killing, and all sorts of downright offensive stuff. You don't see people go around talking about "stoopid conservatives" or "religions nutjobs", do you? No, that's because most people are respectful of others. Unlike you.

If you're gonna talk Politics, you must respect those who disagree.


As I see it, there are only two questions in my mind: why has so much of your content remained on the site?, because I would have deleted much more than just this answer, and why aren't you suspended yet, since you keep posting the same crap over and over?

And yes, you would have been suspended on any other Stack Exchange site I've ever participated in. I would have; I've had the displeasure of suspending only one person in two years I've been a mod on the vi.SE site, and that was for significantly lesser offences than yours. The mods have been very lenient with you. Too lenient, since you don't show any signs of improving, nor apparently even understand what's going on.

8

Suppose someone posted an answer who's whole thesis was that Donald Trump secretly wants to exterminate all non-whites in this country, and they cited his ties with David Duke, Steve Bannon, Neo-Nazis, Jeff Sessions, and the KKK.

Suppose a moderator deleted that answer. Would you consider that to be an example of out of control conservative bias? Because the answer I think you're talking about is kinda like that.

(and yes, one of us would likely delete such an answer.)

  • 2
    This is the definition of a false equivalency. As soon as Trump pardons Timothy McVeigh and invites him to the White House and puts Terry Nichols in charge of his foreign policy let me know. – K Dog Jan 25 '17 at 3:46
  • 6
    @KDog It's not like the examples need to be any good to approach the level of validity your post had. – Sam I am Jan 25 '17 at 3:59
  • 1
    Total BS. The post was more than adequately referenced. And if you want more detail I could certainly provide it. There is substantial quality scholarship on the subject, it just seems to be forbidden here a priori – K Dog Jan 25 '17 at 4:02
  • At this point I have to ask what additional evidence would take to convince you – K Dog Jan 25 '17 at 4:06
  • 10
    @KDog I can make a post that will be "adequately referenced" to "prove" that the holocaust never happened, that the moon-landings were faked, that vaccines cause autism, that the CIA killed JFK, and all manner of nonsense. Adding a bunch of links doesn't make an answer better. – Martin Tournoij Jan 25 '17 at 10:38
  • Need it be said? Credible sources. – K Dog Jan 25 '17 at 12:35
  • 1
    Hmm...that example didn't age well, did it? :/ – user1530 Aug 24 '17 at 22:51
  • 1
    @blip I think it's aged remarkably well so far. The exact same dynamic exists today. People do still commonly say that Trump hates all non-whites, and they still back up those claims with dubious stuff such as how he condemned counter protestors in the same speech where he condemned the Nazis and KKK. – Sam I am Aug 24 '17 at 23:24
  • @samiam you and I have very different definitions of "dubious". Dozens of his staff, several corporations, masses of non profits also disagree. :) but that's all a different debate... – user1530 Aug 25 '17 at 8:27

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .