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: 1254

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Jack, you have no right to doubt my intentions. Do you think I would have tried so hard to explain myself if my only purpose were to provoke?

Learn to write a sentence without using an ad hominem fallacy. Then come back and say whatever you want.

I have every right to doubt you whenever I see fit.  I have no idea why you think "trying to explain yourself" is evidence that you didn't intend to provoke people.  If you hadn't intended to provoke a response with your anti-Veteran comment on a Veteran's Day post, you wouldn't have been so exasperated that Brett denied you the opportunity.

You should take it as a compliment that I doubted that you were stupid enough to think that your comment wouldn't've provoked a response.  You should also learn the definition of "ad hominem fallacy".  You weren't attacked.

JB

Jack, a sign of maturity is to attack ideas, not the people who hold them true. If you think calling me petty and stupid isn't a direct attack, then it is you who have to check your definitions.

That is a lesson you can learn from D.J. The man has a soldier on his avatar picture and still has shown twice the civility you'll ever have.

One always appreciates lessons in maturity and civility from a guy that came here to fuss about the injustice of his pot-shot at veterans being blocked on Veteran's Day. Thanks anyway.

I said your comment was petty. It was. That was addressing the comment, not the personality of the commenter.

I also said I assumed you weren't stupid enough to actually believe your own nonsense about not intending to incite/hijack the comment section. That's an attack on the line you were selling. Buying your line would've required the opposite assumption about your intelligence. I avoided insulting your intelligence the only way I could, by assuming the stupidity was a lie. You're welcome.

DJs avatar is Gen. George Patton. Patton would've smacked you around. I think I've held back well enough.

JB

OK, Jack. Let's call it a day. Thank you for your time posting in this thread.

I'm south of the border "amigou". Wrong continent.

I guessed from your spelling of "honour". Doesn't change the content if the response.

JB
Canadians throw in the extra u as well.

I'm sorry, but I didn't intend to "denigrate the sacrifice of men and women...". All I'm saying is I rather celebrate peace and those who seek for it than war and those who make it. Perhaps I underestimated the controversial effect of my comment (I can see that now, judging by your reactions). But I must emphasize that it wasn't my intention to irritate anybody.

Edit: I asked Brett about the comment hours ago. I don't think I'll get an answer from him (and that's ok).

You're free to hold whatever opinion you want. But I think the point the guys on here are trying to make was that there is a time and place for everything. Expressing your opinion on that particular article was neither the time nor the place to do so. The forums here, and The Great Debate in particular, are much more suitable. 

Point taken. 

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?

RSS

Latest Activity

Clinton R. Ausmus replied to John Muir's discussion Donald Trump Is A Greedy, Creepy, Ignorant Jerk in the group The Great Debate
"They haven't changed. Shane just doesn't have a clue of what he's talking about. Not surprised..."
2 hours ago
Coyote commented on Lumpy52403's photo
Thumbnail

PA111826

"Looking good!"
2 hours ago
Shane replied to Sir's discussion Spacefaring civilization in the group The Great Debate
"It hasn't been reorganized yet, so it's likely not enough to start anything off.  Although Zubrin thinks it can be done for a cheap billion."
4 hours ago
Sir replied to Sir's discussion Spacefaring civilization in the group The Great Debate
"They appropriated $19.5 billion on March 7.  http://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-funding-authorization-bill-2017-3  I can well believe it's not enough, because it's not a yuge increase."
4 hours ago
Shane replied to Pale Horse's discussion Another Brick in the Wall in the group The Great Debate
"It's been the same argument for two years. Trump doesn't live up 100% to some dystopic scenario detractors have concocted in their own minds, and it's supposed to be an existential crisis for his supporters."
4 hours ago
Sir replied to Pale Horse's discussion Another Brick in the Wall in the group The Great Debate
"The problem is believing the caricatures.  Trump keeps saying he's going to renegotiate trade deals (and it looks like he's started).  You don't renegotiate trade deals if you want to eliminate all imports, and he has not…"
5 hours ago
Shane replied to Pale Horse's discussion Another Brick in the Wall in the group The Great Debate
"Eh. I used to be fine with them getting their paperwork sorted before they're caught. I'm curently fine with deporting them all to Poland. The situation we have right now is unsustainable. And, the longer we fuck around doing nothing, the…"
5 hours ago
Pale Horse replied to Pale Horse's discussion Another Brick in the Wall in the group The Great Debate
"Ah, I misunderstood. I thought you were speaking in ideal terms. But still, what do you think about touchback? I'm ok with it if they spend a good length of time outside the US again, be put through the same process as everyone else, and…"
5 hours ago

© 2017   Created by Brett McKay.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service