Recently, I posted an answer which was deleted for 'wrongthink'. For those of you who have not read it, here is a screengrab of the now deleted answer.

The rationale given is that my answer had "white supremacist" propaganda. Yet I do not believe this is the case. Many mainstream conservatives are also aware of the heinous anti-white sentiment/violence in South Africa, the most mainstream of whom is sitting in the Oval Office. Many mainstream conservatives are also aware of the fact that American blacks commit disproportionately more crime, which was a relevant point in my answer. See this video by conservative YouTuber Sargon of Akkad, who is opposed to the alt-right.

Perhaps the issue was with a source I cited, American Renaissance. This is supposedly "white supremacist". Yet this is again inaccurate. It is not "white supremacist". It is "white nationalist". This is what the organization describes itself as. It is indeed described as "white supremacist" by the mainstream corporate media, but the mainstream corporate media is itself anti-white (think Sarah Jeong), so it is not a reliable arbiter on these matters. By siding with the mainstream, leftist corporate media on these questions, the moderators of this website are letting it be known that the only political views this site finds acceptable are those which far-left news corporations deem acceptable.

The articles I cited from American Renaissance were cogent, well-argued and cited reliable primary sources. The only reason they were unacceptable is because they constituted "wrongthink". To be blunt, it's because because they hurt the feelings of the moderators. Apparently, there is only one "acceptable" opinion on the white South African question, and any answers deviating from that "acceptable" opinion are deleted.

This is not consistent with politics.SE being an open platform for genuine intellectual discussion. If you don't like my answer, or the sources my answer cites, why not debate? Why censor? A very anti-intellectual attitude.

I mean, imagine if a conservative moderator decided to ban all answers citing CNN or NYT, because he regarded such organizations as being "fake news propaganda". Ludicrous, right?

If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.

-George Orwell

| |
  • Related politics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3585/…. Posted that question before reading this question. – guest271314 Aug 25 '18 at 16:38
  • 4
    Regardless of source, your answer still should have been deleted as it did not answer the question, your rhetoric just quickened the deletion. US national interest is decided by those elected to further US national interest, that's what representative democracy is all about. US national interest is not decided by strangers on the internet, therefore your opinion was not an answer, right or wrong as it may be - and this is a Q&A site, not an opinion site. An answer would contain some official statement of why an action was taken by someone whose job it is to represent US national interest – Gramatik Aug 27 '18 at 21:17

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.

| |

In most cases, a debate is preferable to outright deletion.

However, that answer is hardly the first time your behaviour has caused concern. In fact, you have posted more than several outright racist comments & posts. The community has tried several times, through comments, Meta, moderator messages and suspensions to help you understand that racism will not be tolerated on this site. To this, you've often responded with racial slurs and personal attacks. At one point, you've even had the audacity to add antisemitic remarks in your profile page.

Is it really that surprising that people aren't interested in debating with you anymore?

| |
  • 2
    This recent answer did not contain any "slurs" or otherwise offensive remarks. – user5904 Aug 24 '18 at 21:18
  • 4
    @MathematicsStudent1122, that's what we call reputation. While generally, people at SE care about "posts, not users", nothing prevents them from remembering your past actions and from being more vigilant about your posts. Good news is that, today must be a suitable moment to start rebuilding one's good name. – bytebuster Aug 24 '18 at 21:42
  • 1
    @bytebuster Online reputation is not the most important thing to me. If people here dislike me, that's understandable—ultimately, you cannot please everyone. Nevertheless, as a matter of policy, I don't think it's appropriate for moderators to be deleting posts based on past grudges or politically incorrect views. You can dislike someone without actively trying to censor them. – user5904 Aug 24 '18 at 21:57
  • 8
    @MathematicsStudent1122 Your answer makes a lot of very strong claims. It does, however, very little to back up those claims. To make matters worse, the little that it does is just a link to a ...controversial source. You have been asked in comments to substantiate the claims in your answer. A random link is not enough. If you insist at using the source, at the very least quote the exact portion of the article that backs up your claim. Also, consider using additional sources. If your points are as uncontroversial and well known as you seem to think, then this should be easy. – yannis Aug 24 '18 at 21:58
  • 10
    @MathematicsStudent1122 Racism is not a "politically incorrect view". – yannis Aug 24 '18 at 21:58

I voted your answer as "rude and abusive" because you were using white supremacist trash to try and justify your argument, regardless of what the author tries to call it, and that kind of drivel has no place on this site. And based off your comments on https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/33180/10183, you have learned nothing from your previous meta conversations.

Feel free to be upset and confused about it, I'll happily take responsibility for any discomfort caused. And just so we're clear: I'll personally be extra careful to keep an eye on you and flag any additional attempts at spreading hateful messages going forward, and I don't feel the least bit guilty saying I sincerely hope you either change your posting habits or get removed forcefully from this site.

| |
  • 1
    "because you were using white supremacist .. to try and justify your argument" Users still have a right to their own perspective. One could argue that the United States itself is a white supremacist organization, though questions and answer concerning U.S. policy are posted every day at this site. If you are going to delete answers simply because you do not agree with their views you might as well write to the "Twitter" service to delete all of the "tweets" of the current U.S. President. See Faurisson affair – guest271314 Aug 25 '18 at 16:41
  • 5
    @guest271314 "Users still have a right to their own perspective." Maybe (though remember perspectives can be wrong), but here on Stack Exchange we have standards. And users have the responsibility to uphold those standards, otherwise Stack Exchange has the right to revoke that users privileges. – Batman Aug 25 '18 at 16:55
  • Comments archived. If you wish to continue the discussion on free speech, political discourse and Stack Exchange, please do it in chat. – yannis Sep 1 '18 at 13:56

I stand with the original poster as an American patriot. Same thing happened to me. My answer was deleted in another post by a moderator because they disagreed with the content. Isn't that what political discussion is about?. This stackexchange site is a farce that clearly censors views that moderators disagree with. One day Section 230 will be fixed to get rid of big tech loopholes. There was nothing white supremacist or hateful about the original author's post. Neither of us used any curse words or anything that violates the Section 230 Communications Decency Act from the US Constitution. Just go and block and delete posts of the wrong user one of these days and stackexchange will have a lawsuit on their hands. Stackexchange needs to stop restricting freedom of speech. You cannot be a publisher and editor at the same time; pick one, can't be both.

My original post here: https://i.stack.imgur.com/RUH29.png

| |
  • "Isn't that what political discussion is about?" Well, this, like every other Stack Exchange site, is not a site for discussion. "Stackexchange [sic] needs to stop restricting freedom of speech." Freedom of speech only means you can't be prosecuted for what you say, it doesn't mean private companies have to give you a platform to say whatever you like. – F1Krazy Nov 22 at 9:56
  • 1
    well at least folks will see that stackexchange is crooked like the rest of big tech. Enjoy the speech silencing while you can – joshpt Nov 22 at 13:21
  • 1
    "Freedom of speech only means you can't be prosecuted for what you say" - Incorrect. The "First Amendment" protects "freedom of speech," but it is not the same thing. "Freedom of speech" is a principle that predates Western Civilization (not a law) that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction. - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech – SurpriseDog Nov 22 at 13:59
  • BTW, the Supreme Court has expressed interest in limiting section 230 - axios.com/… so you could see a case about this in the future. – SurpriseDog Nov 22 at 14:13

You must log in to answer this question.