What's the point of this post 2?

Look, William Bennett53—it’s just plain rude to slam the door in someone's face, especially when they’re asking you a legitimate question, or better yet, when you're the one being questioned.

The question in the title is perfectly clear to the moderator who handled it. But fine, since you seem lost, let me break it down for you.

So, here's the deal: if you click that little arrow next to my quote, you should be seeing my original post. But you won't—and here’s the kicker—because it was deleted! It was wiped out by the censors over in the Politics section because they couldn't stomach the argument I made. My point was simple: Perković and Mustać spent sixty-eight out of their seventy years working against American interests, and those two brief instances where they supposedly worked "for the country" were merely moments where their own selfish interests happened to align with ours—or, to put it bluntly, they were just covering their own backs to protect their paychecks and privileges from various domestic and foreign centralists. I also pointed out how hypocritical it is to claim we shouldn't talk about handing over intelligence assets; they weren't even truly "ours" for ninety-eight percent of their lives, so why should we be expected to call them our own based on a mere two years of them protecting their own skin?

To bury that argument, they nuked the post. Instead, they left this snippet—this pathetic little fragment—that only quotes my rebuttal to some random user who claims to be an intelligence officer, despite spending years spamming threads about how Gotovina is a criminal who needs to answer for his actions. So, while nothing in the tiny five-percent fragment left behind is technically untrue, it makes me look like a troll while the guy quoting me looks like some innocent bystander. That is simply a lie. Every single one of my posts is backed by heavy, logical argumentation.

If my original post is gone, then common decency dictates that the reply should be gone too—especially when that reply only contains a microscopic fraction of what I actually wrote.

And frankly, I’ll take this opportunity to say that the moderation team over in Politics is a cesspool of censorship, run by people with extreme ideological biases, narrow minds, and incredibly bizarre social—and forum—etiquette. I’ve made my decision: as long as that crew is running the show and until the head moderator changes, I am done posting here. There is no point in participating when there is such blatant injustice; I refuse to sit here and tolerate it. I won't bow down to it.

Go ahead, shut the door, and take whatever disciplinary action you think you need to take against me. Honestly? I couldn't care less...

If you had actually bothered to explain the reasoning behind your question, this thread wouldn't have been locked. Honestly, I feel a bit ridiculous having to prompt you to be explicit; you aren't exactly a stranger to this forum, and you should be well aware of the protocol for starting a discussion here.

Furthermore, you are aware that this sub exists specifically for appeals, not as a dumping ground for debates migrating from other parts of the site. Please, let's try to keep future posts focused on that.

I also failed to notice in your previous post whether you had already utilized the report button, though I will assume you have, given that you understand the importance of due process.

On a separate note—and I have no intention of interfering with the appeal itself—I would simply point out that quoting portions of a post is perfectly acceptable under the rules, provided it isn't used to misrepresent the original content (for instance, by creating a collage of out-of-context sentences...).

Look, I’m not just throwing out quotes here—I think you completely missed the point. This isn't about what was said, it's about the absolutely shady way this place is being moderated.
My question is actually quite simple: by what specific standard does my post get nuked while this one stays up? (And yes, that was rhetorical!)

I see no reason to go clicking all those little buttons—it's not like anyone is actually reading those emails except for the folks over at the city water department headquarters anyway.

P.S. I don't feel the need to drag the whole argument over here; I just want to clarify for anyone reading this why posts on the politics board vanish—and since you can't even see the deleted ones, it's easy to hide behind "shady moderation." It’s much easier to avoid embarrassment when people are kept in the dark, though frankly, I suspect these people have zero shame, zero integrity, and absolutely no moral compass whatsoever.

If you aren't going to click the little icon to contribute something meaningful to this discussion, then at the very least, one shouldn't be lecturing others on baseness. After all, you haven't even exercised your own full potential here.

It is a simple matter of inquiry: by what specific standard did my previous post merit deletion while this one remains? (That was rhetorical.)

Well, there we have it. At least now we have a question to contend with. 👍

William Bennett53, look, you’re a decent enough guy—at least you're actually putting in the effort. But honestly? You're pointing your finger at all the wrong things.

The post I linked isn't "problematic," nor does it deserve to be scrubbed from existence. It doesn't bother me, personally. I'm not about to go running to the report button every single time someone directs a comment my way.

The entire point here—the crux of the matter!—is that you need a moderator who actually removes arguments regarding some communist criminal responsible for a brutal axe murder. And yet, you have the audacity to ask *me* to file a complaint about it? Really?

I came here to complain because there ought to be someone capable of telling a moderator, "Hey, you can't do that," but apparently, that person doesn't exist in this ecosystem. Instead, some "super-moderator"—who acts like a total mouthpiece for censorship in political discussions—will just step in and tell me that my post was deleted simply because it was addressed to another user. Fine. I might be able to swallow that in some weird sci-fi alternate reality, but the real question remains: if my post was truly deleted, why is the thread left with nothing but the part where one user addresses another and their subsequent rebuttal?

Do you see what I'm getting at?

The moderation issue is systemic. There isn't a mechanism for correcting mistakes; instead, there is only a mechanism for justifying and sugarcoating moderator actions—actions that no sane person could ever view as fair or decent.

So, quite frankly, there is zero point in discussing politics here if your ideology doesn't perfectly align with the moderation team. If you differ, you get erased. There is no way to exercise your right to equality or your freedom to speak. Consequently, writing becomes a futile exercise unless I constantly massage, mask, and twist my words just so the moderator doesn't feel personally attacked by my political stance.

Then there's the fact that we are living in the 21st century, where freedom of speech is supposed to be a fundamental, universally accepted civilizational value. Third, and perhaps most damning, is that your site is being policed by people who act like low-level censors from a bygone era—people ready to defend individuals responsible for splitting skulls, all because those individuals happened to write "dangerous" books (and I suppose my posts are considered "dangerous" in that same vein). It is a disgrace that you allow this to happen.

But one thing is certain: I refuse to be a part of that disgrace. Best regards to you—like I said, you're a good kid.

Feel free to lock this. I already know exactly what kind of response I'm going to get, and I've essentially already written out every possible rebuttal anyway, so there's no sense in dragging this out.

You’re a decent guy, really, but this kind of approach isn't going to fly on this forum.
If you have a grievance, be concise and get straight to the point. Avoid leaning into political rhetoric; instead, focus strictly on the specific instances that are causing issues.
The moderators aren't infallible, which is precisely why we have an appeals process. Here is how it works: report the post first. If there is no response, take it to the site administrators and cite the moderator involved. If that doesn't resolve things, you can escalate to the super-admins. And if even that falls short—though those instances are quite rare—you can ultimately appeal directly to the owner.

darkhawk said:If my original post was already scrubbed, then it’s only fair to wipe out the reply too, right?

Look, there isn't actually a rule saying we have to delete a response if it doesn't just (and only) dwell on the controversial bits—which is why the quoted post itself was removed in the first place. Plus, if we deleted every single post that contained a quote, we'd end up wiping out half the conversation, which honestly does more harm to the thread than just leaving one dead-end quote sitting there. But, that's not really what's happening here. Even if your specific reply stayed up, the content itself feels a bit spammy and doesn't really need to be cluttering up this discussion. So, I went ahead and removed it.

As for your complaint about having your post taken down, you're going to have to hang tight for a bit. I need to catch up on the rest of the debate and touch base with the moderators to see exactly how everything unfolded.