Censorship again?

At first glance, I foolishly assumed the server had simply glitched, but it turns out we are dealing with censorship once again; it wasn't some technical hiccup when my post vanished the first time.

The subject at hand is the "way of life" section in the policy PDF, and it appears lonebadger6 was once again busy playing the role of the censor.

Since the original post has been scrubbed by the censors, I am unable to provide a link, so I shall simply paste the text right here.

Quote: in passing said:What I would actually find interesting is the perspective of those children... whether they feel satisfied that their mothers chose to carry them, or if they believe everything would have been perfectly fine had they been aborted instead.

...having server issues yet again...

My own mother ultimately decided against an abortion due to precisely this kind of external pressure—religious reasons, specifically—as she was facing severe vascular issues, and doctors warned her she could lose a leg if she didn't proceed with the termination.

As for my own stance? My opinion, and indeed the very reality of it, is that I would be dead and possess no opinion whatsoever if she hadn't made that choice... so, in any given scenario, my viewpoint is inherently predicated upon her decision to forgo the abortion... just as my very existence is.

Consequently, my grievance lies with the ideological narrowness, the one-sidedness, and the blatant censorship being practiced here...

My contribution was directly relevant to the topic and composed with appropriate decorum.

One would think that dogmatism and intellectual stagnation shouldn't be the hallmarks of a free press, so why is this forum trending so heavily in that direction?

Your post was nuked because it was replying to a deleted thread and included it in the quote.
It’s such a charming little setup, though it’s hardly a Sisyphus task to see why the logic falls apart... It doesn't make much sense to scrap a troll post while leaving all the replies that quoted it intact.
As for the ban, you got it for being repetitive.
Don't worry about how the server runs; it does plenty of nonsense, but it doesn't just delete posts on its own. If a post vanishes, it means the mods took it down. And if you look just a few threads down, you'll see this is standard procedure, and we aren't planning on explaining the reasoning behind every single removal... especially when the inquiry isn't a civilized question, but just a whine.

This whole charade is utterly pointless. How exactly am I supposed to respond to a post that’s been scrubbed from existence before I can even reach it...

When my initial reply vanished, I foolishly assumed it was some technical glitch; I hadn't yet grasped the reality that I was witnessing deliberate censorship.

There wasn't a single justifiable reason to delete that first post, assuming, of course, that this wasn't merely a server error and was actually an intentional act.

By doing this, you simply confirm that we are dealing with premeditation, in other words, outright censorship.

My previous entry was perfectly civil, respectful, and strictly on-topic, just as this one isn't merely some mindless copy-paste job.

If I am forbidden from expressing my thoughts—if they are being deleted—then what else could one possibly call it if not censorship?

The situation speaks for itself... the quality of the content and its adherence to decorum are perfectly clear.

What I am actually looking for is a response from someone higher up the chain, as it is patently obvious that you are merely acting as a mouthpiece for this censorship.

That’s exactly why you didn't get a warning for your content; they just wiped the whole thing. Moderators aren't allowed to go in and edit posts just to scrub out a quote...
The issue lies within the specific post you're quoting, which was nothing more than pure trolling for the sake of it. Because that original post was nuked, all the replies went down with it—making it impossible to tell which responses were genuine thoughts and which ones were just people lashing out at the troll...

What kind of trolling is this? Are you actually trying to plant these ideas just to justify your own censorship? It’s transparently obvious.

The individual asks: I would actually be curious to hear what those children think... whether they feel satisfied that their mothers chose not to go through with it, or if they believe everything would have been perfectly fine if they had been aborted instead.

And I am simply providing an answer, all within the necessary context.

I couldn't care less about your justifications for narrow-mindedness and censorship; my real question is whether there is someone above you, and if this stance is being mandated by your superiors. (If that's the case, then the shame brought upon the entire organization is even more profound, naturally...)

His... Just trolling at this point. It’s none of your business and certainly not your problem, so let's just call it a day on this discussion... unless an admin actually has something useful to add, in which case they'll step in...

You’ve tried bringing back deleted posts twice now—once we let it slide, but the second time was a bridge too far. If you’re ever feeling confused or just plain lost about how things work around here, just ask... restoring deleted content is strictly against the rules, and that’s really all there is to it...

You’re merely entangling yourself further in this mess. If we aren't dealing with a simple server glitch and you actually went out of your way to delete your posts twice, then your embarrassment is even more profound than I initially thought. I took the liberty of quoting his question—which was perfectly valid—and provided a response that was equally appropriate and it is all right there for anyone to see within my original post.

In your desperate attempt to mask the criteria of one-sidedness and blatant censorship, you are only succeeding in exposing yourself further; everything I have been saying is becoming increasingly undeniable...

🤦

You’ve already received an answer, and if any of the admins have anything else to add to the conversation, whether it's directed at you or me, they'll step in... so just stop the trolling. Nobody here is interested in listening to some pathetic sob story about censorship, and frankly, we don't have the time to sit here and explain basic common sense to you ten times over.

You asked a question, you got a response from the moderator, and you'll get one from the super-mods or the administrators if they decide it's actually worth their while...

I didn't receive an actual answer from you, merely a desperate attempt to justify this censorship. If you bother to look at what was quoted in my initial post, it becomes quite evident that my colleague’s question was perfectly appropriate, just as my response was entirely beyond reproach.

Furthermore, I have already made it abundantly clear that I have zero interest in your tiresome excuses regarding one-sided thinking and censorship; my concern lies solely in whether those positioned above you actually endorse such narrow-mindedness and suppression. That point was explicitly stated in my second post, which is number 3 in this thread.

The idea of someone trying to strike up a conversation with the unborn might just be a personal whim of theirs. Personally, I have no clue which specific journal or publication such entries would actually belong in, but they certainly don't fit the vibe of the New York Times.

Maria Fowler39 said:To, It feels as though one might need to hold a conversation with those who haven't even been born yet—perhaps to explain the state of things we are leaving behind.It might just be someone's personal preference, I suppose. Personally, I am not entirely sure which specific policy document such entries would actually belong to—though they certainly wouldn't fit within the guidelines of a publication like the New York Times.

🤦
Well, I suppose I should issue myself a formal reprimand—perhaps even a ban—for my recent behavior. I’ve been trolling quite a bit lately, and honestly, I’ve been acting rather foolishly.
Where exactly does the author of that "controversial" post mention having a conversation with the "unborn"?

Passing by said:Take a look at the post.
I find myself wondering about the actual perspective of those children—whether they feel any sense of gratitude that their mothers chose to move forward, or if they perhaps feel that things might have been better off had an abortion occurred instead.

The author here is discussing children who are already grown—adults, really—which becomes pretty clear when you look at the responses to that particular post:

My mother ended up giving up—precisely because of that kind of pressure—for religious reasons; she was facing some serious issues with her veins, and the doctors told her she’d likely lose her leg if she didn't undergo an abortion.

What is my perspective? Well, my opinion—and it’s a simple matter of fact—is that I would be dead and wouldn't have any opinion at all if she hadn't decided against the abortion... so, in any case, my viewpoint is necessarily contingent upon her choosing to carry the pregnancy—just as my very existence is, I suppose.

It’s quite apparent—even from a distance—that you’re being biased.👎

Paul Kern12 said:The author here is clearly referring to children who are already grown up, which becomes quite evident when you look at the replies to that particular thread:

Exactly, that was indeed the context, and I merely chose to quote the specific portion where my colleague posed his question before I provided my response. However, given how they’ve been playing games with deleting and censoring posts, one begins to wonder if anything can truly be viewed as permanent... Had I possessed the foresight to anticipate such blatant manipulation and censorship, I might have taken a screenshot, but unfortunately, I failed to do so; nevertheless, even from this snippet, the situation remains abundantly clear.

It’s just as much of an improper entry, really. What’s the point of dissecting every single case if we're just going to give weight to a mix of actual events and total fabrications that nobody can actually verify? And where does that even lead the whole discussion?

Maria Fowler39 said:It’s the same issue with improper entries—what are we supposed to do, dissect every single case? We'd just be wasting space on stories, whether they're real or made up, that nobody can actually verify. And where does that kind of debate even lead?

Well, first off, that whole line of reasoning is what led to you trolling and acting foolishly.

]The idea that someone would want to converse with those not yet born might just be a personal desire. Personally, I have no idea which subreddit such posts would belong in, but they certainly don't fit in r/politics.[

More importantly, it leads to you being evasive, lacking consistent standards—your post was pure trolling, honestly, enough to warrant a ban—and, ultimately, attempting to censor this forum.
But then again, I suppose that isn't exactly news to anyone at this point.👎

feralranger said:Exactly. That was the context. I just quoted the specific part where he asked the question and gave my reply. But since they’ve been playing games with deletions and censorship, now you have to wonder if everything is actually visible... If I’d known they were going to mess with the posts like this, I would have taken a screenshot. Sadly, I didn't, but it's pretty obvious from this situation anyway.

Why make it complicated? Standard moderation involves pulling posts that are inappropriate, off-topic, or borderline against the rules.

When a post like that gets removed, it's also standard practice to clear out any other posts quoting that deleted content. There's the logic behind it.

There's no need to read too much into these moderation moves. We often do it automatically without even looking at what was actually in the deleted post.

I can confirm that. I rarely finish reading posts containing deleted quotes, or even pay much attention to them, since the content is usually irrelevant anyway. It’s rare to find anyone actually offering constructive or polite replies to a thread that warrants a ban, so it doesn't really matter.

Deleting posts that include parts of a removed message has been the standard procedure on this site for years now.

Charles Fox10 said:One shouldn't draw any definitive conclusions from that specific instance of moderation, as we frequently act on autopilot without even bothering to glance at the actual content of the deleted post.

First, a participant is censored and their post is wiped away under the incredibly elastic label of "trolling," and immediately following that, a second user is purged by the same mindless "autopilot" logic. It is painfully obvious that both entries were perfectly legitimate and composed in an entirely civil manner.

And yet, instead of simply acknowledging and rectifying the error, we are presented with these truly meddlesome justifications fueled by sheer dogmatism and censorship.

feralranger said:First, one user gets censored or deleted under the vague label of trolling, then another follows almost automatically. It’s pretty clear both posts were perfectly fine and written quite politely.

And after all that, instead of actually fixing the mistake, we get these clumsy excuses from the censors and the simpletons.

Believe what you want. But if we start deleting posts only to have every subsequent reply quoting them flagged as moderation, we’re just playing a game of Sisyphus.

I have no interest in getting involved in this story, nor do I intend to. This post probably should have been deleted or buried, but I'm simply explaining how things work here.

It’s incredibly rare—honestly, I wouldn't have thought possible once—that we issue a ban for reposting deleted content. We usually assume someone just missed the notification that their post was pulled. But if they do it a second time? A ban is pretty much a given. It’s just one-on-one moderation at that point.

So, what I don't like isn't your reasoning for why the posts are missing—that’s one thing entirely. It’s your claim that this is censorship. That argument just doesn't hold water, regardless of how you look at it. It isn't in the policy. Politics.

That’s all from me.

The censorship here is so glaringly obvious that these clumsy attempts at justification serve as nothing more than a confession... because in all your frantic efforts to rationalize this crackdown, you haven't actually pointed to a single thing that warranted being penalized or scrubbed. Every single post was perfectly fine; indeed, if they hadn't been censored or deleted, nobody would have felt the need to repost them in the first place... and with this platform, one can never truly be certain—sometimes the server just seems to lag and fails to register an entry, leading a user to simply switch tabs... but in the end, it turns out it wasn't a technical glitch at all, but rather intentional deletion, which is to say, outright censorship, which is a far greater embarrassment for Reddit, quite frankly.

This is all just a massive waste of time. Honestly, the moderators have far more important things to handle than bickering with someone who refuses to accept a simple explanation. The post was removed because it quoted another post that had already been deleted. It’s that straightforward. If you want to view it as censorship, be my guest. I'm done.