On the question How come Joe Biden's mental state is in question while Donald Trump's is addressed with so much restraint? (currently closed, but with a move to reopen) , I wrote an answer (see revision history) that was subsequently deleted by moderator Philipp as 'spam, rude, or abusive'. However, my answer was none of the three. It was an exposition of one of the features of nationalist movements, as defined by Orwell, which I used to explain why there is a disparity in accusations of mental unfitness leveled against Biden and Trump. Put briefly, such accusations are typical of nationalists, and atypical of non-nationalists; read the post in full to get the full sense.
Philipp marked this as closed 'by vote', though looking at the history the vote count is "up:9, down:4, delete:1", which is a peculiar interpretation of 'voting'. But this site has peculiar decision-making rules, so that may be a minor point.
The real problem with this deletion is that Philipp has apparently decided that perfectly valid political philosophy, carefully explained, is meant to be abusive. I'm not going to claim that my answer was pleasant or unchallenging — Orwell saw nationalist movements as a distinct threat to the modern political world, and I tend to agree — but pointing out a feature of such a movement is not meant to insult or degrade. It is meant to inform people of the issue, so that they can gain a proper perspective. I mean, are we going to delete every mention of Marxist theory because a capitalist thinks it is a personal insult? Will we delete the theoretical views of atheists because individual Christians take it as an affront? There is obviously a balance to be struck here between laying out abstract problems and treading on individual toes: a balance I'm usually quite good at finding, though I'm always open to suggestions for revisions. But there is a vital distinction between the unpleasant conclusions of political philosophy and the random outbursts of political trolls; a distinction that Philipp utterly failed to make in this particular case.
My answer was informed and articulate, if perhaps a bit pointed. I suggest anyone who dislikes it should first Read Orwell (as linked), hash it out there, and then come back to my answer with a reasoned critique.
This is not the first time that Phillip and I have clashed, nor (I suspect) will it be the last. He and I may have irreconcilable differences about what constitutes a good and informative post. But if nothing else, we could use this space to hammer out some guidelines that will help moderators avoid spurious actions of this sort, and avoid backlash from participants (such as myself) who feel like their contributions are ill-handled. But in any case, I do believe this answer should be reinstated, if only to establish the principle that political philosophy is fair ground on this site.