Unfortunately, content at SE sites is frequently deleted or defaced by vote of users and moderators.
The content of your answer, including the comments, and the answer of rs.29 is neither "offensive" nor "rude" within the context of political discourse.
It is highly unlikely that your answer or the answer of user rs.29 will be un-deleted. From perspective here, the answers should not have been deleted in the first instance.
Mature political discourse requires parties and interests having widely differing views to sit at the same table and discuss the matters at hand. Not to arbitrarily stifle dissent or perspectives that do not fit in to some pseudo mold.
Whether one agrees or disagrees with the content is that individuals' choice. The perspectives themselves are valuable.
The only action that this user can take is to remind users of the importance of not stifling political dissent, which perhaps users here will review and come to the realization that deleting content is akin to the establishment of a Stack Exchange Stasi, whereby in the fervent desire to delete content of users SE becomes an instrument of policies and actions which it purports to abhor. See a quote attributed to Voltaire
- I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
- Though these words are regularly attributed to Voltaire, they were first used by Evelyn Beatrice Hall, writing under the pseudonym
of Stephen G Tallentyre in The Friends of Voltaire (1906), as a
summation of Voltaire's beliefs on freedom of thought and
expression.[13]
- Another possible source for the quote was proposed by Norbert Guterman, editor of "A Book of French Quotations," who noted a letter
to M. le Riche (6 February 1770) in which Voltaire is quoted as
saying: "Monsieur l'abbé, I detest what you write, but I would give my
life to make it possible for you to continue to write" ("Monsieur
l'abbé, je déteste ce que vous écrivez, mais je donnerai ma vie pour
que vous puissiez continuer à écrire"). This remark, however, does not
appear in the letter.
Some Elementary Comments on The Rights of Freedom of Expression by Noam Chomsky
I made it explicit that I would not discuss Faurisson's work, having
only limited familiarity with it (and, frankly, little interest in
it). Rather, I restricted myself to the civil-liberties issues and the
implications of the fact that it was even necessary to recall
Voltaire's famous words in a letter to M. le Riche: "I detest what you
write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to
continue to write." [...] Many writers find it scandalous that I
should support the right of free expression for Faurisson without
carefully analyzing his work, a strange doctrine which, if adopted,
would effectively block defense of civil rights for unpopular views.
[...]
It seems to me something of a scandal that it is even necessary to
debate these issues two centuries after Voltaire defended the right of
free expression for views he detested. It is a poor service to the
memory of the victims of the holocaust to adopt a central doctrine of
their murderers.
Let me add a final remark about Faurisson’s alleged “anti-Semitism.”
Note first that even if Faurisson were to be a rabid anti-Semite and
fanatic pro-Nazi — such charges have been presented to me in private
correspondence that it would be improper to cite in detail here — this
would have no bearing whatsoever on the legitimacy of the defense of
his civil rights. On the contrary, it would make it all the more
imperative to defend them since, once again, it has been a truism for
years, indeed centuries, that it is precisely in the case of
horrendous ideas that the right of free expression must be most
vigorously defended; it is easy enough to defend free expression for
those who require no such defense. Putting this central issue aside,
is it true that Faurisson is an anti-Semite or a neo-Nazi? As noted
earlier, I do not know his work very well. But from what I have read —
largely as a result of the nature of the attacks on him — I find no
evidence to support either conclusion. Nor do I find credible evidence
in the material that I have read concerning him, either in the public
record or in private correspondence. As far as I can determine, he is
a relatively apolitical liberal of some sort. In support of the charge
of anti-Semitism, I have been informed that Faurisson is remembered by
some schoolmates as having expressed anti-Semitic sentiments in the
1940s, and as having written a letter that some interpret as having
anti-Semitic implications at the time of the Algerian war. I am a
little surprised that serious people should put such charges forth —
even in private — as a sufficient basis for castigating someone as a
long-time and well-known anti-Semitic. I am aware of nothing in the
public record to support such charges. I will not pursue the exercise,
but suppose we were to apply similar standards to others, asking, for
example, what their attitude was towards the French war in Indochina,
or to Stalinism, decades ago. Perhaps no more need be said.
