So, I write a comment on the post about veterans today. Hit the "submit" button. See the "this comment is awaiting moderation" message. Then -- about 5 hours later-- my comment is still not there.

I didn't used bad words, nor did I write anything that I could regard as offensive to others.

So why was it censored? Because I don't agree with the author or the site owner?
I'm really upset about this. I don't think my opinion is any better than the next guy's, but I certanly do think it's JUST as important as his.

Has anybody had a similar issue in the past?

P.S. If you were about to write something like "well, it's Brett's blog, so if you don't like it just leave", please note that I do like the blog --a lot. But I also like virtues such as intelectual honesty, opennes and transparency.

Views: 1223

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Point taken. 

I just went and looked through the comments.  There are a few in disagreement, and one exchange of disagreement, with the author.  So it's not an issue of disagreement, but rather your particular disagreement.  My opinion, it was just too inflammatory for that article.  Too political and too off topic.

Maybe you firmly believe 1 and 2. Okay, your business. But was it necessary to say it in a forum of honoring vets? Then complain if it's not posted by they guy that owns the blog? With free speech comes responsibility, and a right to free speech does not guarantee an adoring, simpering audience.

Can you really say you like intellectual honesty if your post on a veteran's day blog is intended to cause trouble? You were not being honest with yourself if you didn't think it through. Sometimes, a man must self-censor so as not to do harm.

Glad I typed all that coz my first reaction was nasty, but I self-censored as an example. Capisce?

To be fair, you have no legal right to post your comment on the article. Indeed, Brett reserves all rights to censor as much or as little as he wants. That's just the nitty gritty legal side of things.

I would agree with you that transparency (yeah, that buzzword) and the principle behind free speech should permit you to post your comment, especially if your comment was not vulgar, inflammatory, or otherwise offensive. Perhaps Brett just skipped over some comments and wasn't able to approve them all. Running this blog and being an active father would be a busy gig. Give him the benefit of the doubt. As you say, he runs a great site. I trust him in the comment sections as well. 

I know I don't have any "legal right" to post my comments (it's not like I wanna sue him!).  I actually agree with Brett in many aspects, but not with this.

It is a comment section on a private blog. You aren't being censored, you aren't having your honesty and "opennes" challenged, they aren't practicing a lack of transparency. Try using your virtue of being "intelectual" and realize that sometimes shit you say doesn't really matter and won't be put out there.

If you don't like it, you can always start your own blog and say whatever shit that you think needs to be said over there. Hell, say it in great debate or the blog feature here.

Either way, be a man and suck it up

LShieldes's got it.

Did you even read what I wrote up there? I will assume you didn't, so:

1) I don't think much of my opinion. It's as valuable as yours

2) I like AoM. It's my favorite blog. That doesn't mean I can't disagree with some aspects of it

By the way: next time you feel like being sarcastic, try harder.

Shieldes and I rarely agree, but we're of the same mind on this one.

 

You're not being censored.  Your comment was, apparently, found to be unworthy or unwelcome.  Frankly I'm curious what it said, but apparently I won't get to read it.

 

And, just for reference, I noticed no sarcasm in his reply to you.  

That's because he is lousy at it :D

I won't rewrite my comment, but I explained it's content to Shane in this thread.

I haven't read the comment sections on the main blog in a while, but I've never seen any comments censored for disagreement.  Simple or violent.  I didn't even know Brett was moderating them given some of the anti-AoM replies I've seen.  Also, given some of the disagreements I've had with Kate on this board, and me still being here, I'd be willing to bet it was an honest overlook.

I didn't know Kate waded into the forums. Never seen her here. 

RSS

Latest Activity

Daniel replied to David F.'s discussion When is it better to be morally correct knowing it causes a worse out come? (The failure of Abstinence only educations) in the group The Great Debate
"Give them all the information. The parents will teach them morals at home anyway, no matter what they learn in school."
6 minutes ago
Liam Strain replied to David F.'s discussion When is it better to be morally correct knowing it causes a worse out come? (The failure of Abstinence only educations) in the group The Great Debate
"Not sure I follow the argument backing your assertion that risk management is a moral issue."
10 minutes ago
Aarondelrod replied to David F.'s discussion When is it better to be morally correct knowing it causes a worse out come? (The failure of Abstinence only educations) in the group The Great Debate
"Also whether promiscuity is bad is purely based on the moral beliefs of the individual. I was attempting to argue that the negative results of promiscuity are bad, unwanted children and stds. If you always take the perfect precautions I suppose…"
12 minutes ago
Jack Bauer replied to David F.'s discussion When is it better to be morally correct knowing it causes a worse out come? (The failure of Abstinence only educations) in the group The Great Debate
"Religious sexual morality doesn't "complicate the issue" any more than does libertine sexual amorality.  Both are simply values systems that people personally choose to live by.  Both are merely voluntary personal values of…"
13 minutes ago
Jack Bauer replied to David F.'s discussion When is it better to be morally correct knowing it causes a worse out come? (The failure of Abstinence only educations) in the group The Great Debate
"Afraid not.  Teaching risk management in sexual activity inherently embarks on morality ... not mere "mechanics and biology". Some would prefer that risk management be taught by use of latex barriers in inevitable premarital sexual…"
16 minutes ago
Steve Dallas replied to David F.'s discussion When is it better to be morally correct knowing it causes a worse out come? (The failure of Abstinence only educations) in the group The Great Debate
"Where exactly are they pushing the morality of it?  Otherwise, replace sex with math/grammer/science/whatever and your argument becomes purely emotional without a lot of reason."
17 minutes ago
Aarondelrod replied to David F.'s discussion When is it better to be morally correct knowing it causes a worse out come? (The failure of Abstinence only educations) in the group The Great Debate
"I'm new to this and apologize for the misplaced comments"
17 minutes ago
Steve Dallas replied to David F.'s discussion When is it better to be morally correct knowing it causes a worse out come? (The failure of Abstinence only educations) in the group The Great Debate
"I'll relate it to IT. The safest way against virus(STD)/Trojan(pregnancy) for a PC is to take it off the internet completely(absitinance). Reality says that this just isn't goign to work. So you setup protection programs, you teach your…"
20 minutes ago

© 2015   Created by Brett McKay.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service