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: 1173

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I've had it happen to me on many occaisions on a lot of sites....It's all about conformity....Sometimes your opinion just doesn't mesh with the general public's, you're not following the Sheeple.

 

I think it is very important to hear both sides of an argument....The opinion of men on both sides of the room.  But when the man on the other side of the room says something that goes against the mainstream and brings up issues people don't want to acknowledge, that man has to be silenced, because surely someone out of the masses will recognize this man is right, and then it spreads like a disease, and soon, there's a huge shift in thinking that the powers that be just cannot abide by as they feel threatened.

 

....I am NOT a right-wing lunatic, nor am I some weird conspiracy theorist...Just sayin....

It could be that Brett, or the other powers that be, simply haven't been around to approve the comment. Also I have noticed that Brett seems to try and avoid conflict in the main threads. This is why they have the Great Debate thread and such. So he may have felt that your comment, while not offensive in it self, may have cause the thread to become unruly.

To open a public forum and then avoiding conflict seems contradictory to me. I understand the need for moderation (avoiding spam and whatnot) but I'm positive my comment was rejected because of my point of view on celebrating war veterans.

Message Brett and ask him.  He's online now.

What was your comment?

Thanks for the heads up! I have just asked him.

Don't have a copy of the comment, but I wanted to say two things:

1) That I don't believe in honour people who kills other people

2) That not every war the US has fought had the purpose of preserving or achieving freedom

Yep. You probably got blocked.

Maybe Brett wanted his Veterans Day post, and it's comments section, to be about American Veterans rather than your petty European political gripes. I don't blame him for not letting you derail the comment section.

JB

I would argue that a great way to honor veterans is allow the exercise of the free speech that veterans protect.

I'm sure you would. But, this isn't a matter if free speech. It never was. AOM is not obligated to let somebody hijack it's comments section with a debate it'd rather not entertain at the moment.

JB

I feel like you're being hypocritical, JB. Calling Tomas petty while you yourself are. It's one thing to point out a man's errors. It's another thing to degrade his opinion in the process. 

I wouldn't want to denigrate your "feelings", but you're wrong.

To attempt to hijack a post meant to honor sacrifice, instead making it a debate about your personal non-American viewpoint on the American military is petty. Pointing out that it is petty is not similarly petty.

It is degrading, I suppose, but degrading and petty aren't the same thing. So, there's no hypocrisy.

JB

I'm an American and I don't think that there's anything wrong with non-Americans commenting on the meaning of Veterans' Day. It is also celebrated in many other places as Armistice Day!

I didn't attempted to hijack the post. I'm not a provoker. I honestly expressed my opinion. That's it. 

Do you think I should only comment when I agree 100% with the author of the post? If so, I'm glad democracy doesn't depend on you.

RSS

Latest Activity

T Patrick Bailey replied to Ian Wilson's discussion So what is the point of all this? in the group Out to Build Bridges
"....at what? Being a troll? You probably only get along with both-as long as they are of some benefit to you. Like entertainment for example. How sad!"
37 minutes ago
Jay D replied to Kenton S.'s discussion Dating and friends in 2014
"Hard to tell, from my experience the reasons for that behaviour can be so various that it isnt worth thinking to much about it. Could be dislike, insecurity, a stressful day, a bad short term memory or the girl just noticed that she does have a…"
38 minutes ago
Dennis Bogan updated their profile
1 hour ago
Williamssen replied to Peter's discussion How do manliness and metal music fit together?
"[img]metal_101__drunk_shirtless_guy_by_lusoskav-d5sab7z.png[/img]"
1 hour ago
Augustin replied to Robert's discussion The new kid in class.
"Welcome aboard, Robert!"
2 hours ago
Augustin replied to Tim's discussion Male vanity.
"I look in the mirror when I use free weights if I'm in doubt about my form. "
2 hours ago
Curtis replied to Tim's discussion Male vanity.
"Firstly, if they're in the gym - they're not giving up any meals for SUPPLEMENTS and shakes.  The clue is in the name... Everyone, to some extent, is vain these days.  It's particularly noticeable amongst my generation, now…"
3 hours ago
N. Vest replied to Nathanael's discussion Common-sense gun laws, what would they look like for you? in the group The Great Debate
"So a "carry" license? makes sense. You don't need a DL to own a car, just to drive it. I think the big thing here is it should be a "shall issue" license as in the state shall issue you one unless you give them a reason not…"
3 hours ago

© 2014   Created by Brett McKay.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service