Why was my post deleted?

Why was my post deleted again?

I don't see how I broke any rules. It looks like several other posts were wiped out in the same purge.

I’ll paste what I wrote below. I really want an explanation: why is it forbidden to discuss certain aspects of immigration on an immigration thread?

What is the point of having a topic if you aren't allowed to share any opinion or content that contradicts the moderator's view?

Why is the thread even open if discussion is off-limits?

Quote:
whois says:
A Danish imam says pedophilia should be accepted because it’s just a different culture.

Danish imam urges govt to accept child marriages among refugees

“We have to accept that it is a different culture, and we cannot destroy family life,” he told a Danish newspaper

https://www.rt.com/news/332282-child...MdJbK8.twitter

Feminists will probably argue that our grandmothers used to wear headscarves too.

Casey Bennett2 said:If something like this is allowed to pass under the guise of "cultural differences," then we've lost it. It means we're incapable of standing behind the core values of the European Council for Culture and Society. If we can't defend the values we've built over centuries, then those values don't actually exist.

In Europe, sexual contact with children is the most disgusting crime imaginable, and it should be treated as such by everyone on European soil. People who disagree shouldn't be coming to Europe, nor should we be accepting them under the pretext of cultural sensitivity.

Where is the line? Who is going to help these girls? Why aren't their "husbands" already in prison?

Where are all the NGOs now?

An interesting article on this: http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...in-europe.html
Quote:
Likewise, sexual intercourse with a minor is rape. There can be no legal consent involving a child. Euphemistically calling this “child marriage” does not change the fact that it is nothing but child sex abuse. That these are subjective moral positions should be as relevant as it is when discussing the abolition of slavery. In other words, not at all.
That these are subjective moral positions should be as relevant as it is when discussing the abolition of slavery. In other words, not at all.
Quote:

We liberals are moving backwards.

There was a time when we openly advocated for civic intervention against cultural and religious practices that violated individual liberties. We were known as Progressives. We believed society improved by adopting liberal, secular human rights values. We fought generational battles for civil rights and gay rights, and mostly won.

Not anymore.

It doesn't just stop at cowardly silence. Many Progressives haven't just stopped defending liberal values; they've stopped trying to spread them. Instead, they've started proactively defending regressive practices.

Since my question is being ignored, I’ll try one more time to lay out a reasoned argument for why deleting my post was a mistake.

Child marriage isn't some new phenomenon or a massive taboo. It’s been studied extensively by researchers and legal experts, and there are plenty of articles online about it. Most of those sources come from North America, where people actually face these issues head-on instead of closing their eyes to them or fearing the conversation. They actually try to find solutions. But there's plenty of discourse coming out of Europe too—specifically France, which has been addressing child marriage within immigrant populations for about a decade now.

Aside from extremely rare cases among the local population, these issues are primarily tied to immigrant communities. Then there’s polygamy, which is also illegal in both America and Western Europe, yet remains common in certain immigrant groups.

Even UNICEF has defined child marriage as a "violation of human rights" and a "practice that frequently strips children of their basic rights to health, education, and safety, and is condemned by international conventions: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Declaration of the Rights of the Child": http://www.unicef.org/education/file...d_Marriage.pdf

If people in Europe are attempting to downplay child marriage by arguing it's culturally accepted within certain groups—and calling for tolerance from the local population and the courts toward such practices—then why is it banned on this Forum to write about that? Why can't we discuss it as a topic directly linked to immigration and a practice condemned by the UN?

How exactly is a discussion "dangerous" if it doesn't involve insulting other users or differing opinions? Or even just stating the fact that a problem exists? Why is it forbidden to raise questions that someone could actually debunk or disprove with solid arguments?

Lately, it seems like moderators on here (in politics) are deciding on their own, based on their own personal worldviews, what can and cannot be written. Moderators are unilaterally and subjectively deciding which topics are "dangerous," which defeats the entire purpose of a Forum. By definition, this should be a place for free and open debate and the exchange of ideas on matters of public interest. What’s the point of this censorship? How does censoring content help attract quality participants or improve readership?

That’s all from me. A few weeks ago, a moderator restored my post after I filed a complaint because there was nothing objectionable about it, as I maintained. I hope this post gets restored as well, or at least that I'm allowed to repost it, even if I have to edit or expand it to meet whatever specific moderation standards are being applied.

Thanks for the response either way.

Your post wasn't removed because of any personal vendetta. It was deleted because quoting a post that already has a strike against it is against the rules. Plus, when you drop links in a foreign language, you really need to do a bit more than just post the URL.

If you're posting content in a foreign language, an English summary is mandatory! You don't have to translate the whole thing; just a quick one or two sentences explaining the main point in English will do.

http://www.forum.com/showthread.php?t=66911

Charles Fox10 said:Your post wasn't deleted because of a personal grudge. It was removed because quoting a deleted post results in a strike. Also, if you're dropping links in a foreign language, you need to put in more effort than just that.
http://www.example-us-forum.com/showthread.php?t=66911

Fine. Thanks for the clarification.

So, can I repost my content? I’ll skip the quote from the deleted thread, rework the text, and provide an English summary translated into American English. I don't want to risk another strike by reposting something that looks too much like the original.

Thanks.

Honestly, your entire post feels like a direct response to what cardboard-post wrote—which, by the way, is the only time anyone has even brought that up in this whole thread—so I’m not really seeing the point of posting since the original context is already gone...

lonebadger6 said:Honestly, your entire post is just a reaction to a deleted post (and it's about stuff nobody else even brought up in this thread besides that deleted post), so I don't really see the point in posting since there’s nothing left to respond to.

When I wrote that, it wasn't deleted. I had no way of knowing it would be. And even after it was gone—how does that make my actual content problematic?

Tonight I made a new post, completely separate from the old one. I started a whole new thread on the politics side regarding refugee and immigrant issues.

And now I just got flagged for "indiscipline," plus they wiped the whole post. 🙏

If I actually broke a rule (which I didn't), why delete the entire thing? Isn't a warning enough? Are users just not allowed to know or discuss certain topics?

What's the issue here? Can someone from admin step in?

One of the issues recently facing host countries is the problem of "child marriages," which is an accepted practice in some immigrant communities.

The European Administration has no answer to this, and in my view, they're just trying to sweep it under the rug. Instead of fixing it, authorities are issuing permits for 13 or 14-year-old girls to join their "husbands" and live with them in asylum centers.

The BBC did a solid job covering this shocking practice: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34573825

An article from October 2015 notes that Dutch law allows "child brides" to arrive to reunite with husbands who are often significantly older, and accepts these marriages if they were legal in the country of origin.

In other words, a man on European soil can "live" with a 12, 13, or 14-year-old girl, provided they are both immigrants from a place where this is permitted?

The article also mentions that this practice should be changed via a law amendment in December to require family reunification only once individuals turn 18, but I haven't seen any evidence that such a change was actually implemented in Dutch law.

Meanwhile, during a recent attempt to establish order in Denmark, a Danish Imam appealed to officials to accept child marriage because it is "part of the culture for many refugees." The Imam claims that "they are married, and even though the man is twice as old, they have started a family and we shouldn't destroy their family life": https://www.rt.com/news/332282-child...mark-refugees/

UNICEF defines child marriage as a "violation of human rights" and a "practice that often denies children basic rights to health, education, and safety," condemning it through international conventions like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Declaration of the Rights of the Child: http://www.unicef.org/education/file...d_Marriage.pdf

Freedom—even when it's tied to specific cultural norms—ends the moment it starts infringing on someone else's rights. In America, we can't, and shouldn't, tolerate this kind of thing. We have to protect those girls. Their fundamental human rights take precedence over any "cultural" excuses once they are on American soil. Those "husbands" need to be prosecuted for pedophilia just like any other American would be if they committed a crime against a child.

Where do we draw the line? How far does this go if we can't even set a boundary on something as basic as protecting children living among us? It’s unacceptable to use cultural differences to justify or mask practices that, by every civilized standard, are simply one thing: a crime.

Based on the explanation from lonebadger6 sent with the card, I get that the post was deleted because of a link to an article about a Danish imam.

What's the issue? Why can't we just share content from a news outlet?

Thanks.

I sent you a DM, and more importantly, there’s already a dedicated thread regarding bans. As for deleted posts, the supermod already explained that on the Politics board, we clear out a massive amount of content daily, so we can't exactly sit here and justify every single deletion one by one...

Now you're complaining about the ban, but again, there's a specific thread for that. We don't open new threads just because someone got banned. You've had your answer, and a higher authority isn't going to step in to explain why you were banned or what was wrong with your post, since it wasn't some higher power that issued the ban, but me... Higher management will only step in if they feel something needs clarification or if they decide the ban was a mistake.

So, once more—you got banned, and while it happened in chronological order, it wasn't based on importance , it was because you reposted a deleted comment before even getting an answer to whether you could restore it... then you included a quote from another user who was also banned, which was clearly stated... and finally, because you're trying to stir up a moral panic with claims that have absolutely nothing to do with what you actually wrote.

Please don't keep this argument going here; just wait for a supermod to move these posts to where they belong. Honestly, there isn't much point in dragging this out—you've said your piece, you received an answer, and the people in charge will weigh in if they feel anything needs to be added or changed.

Also, just as a fair warning, moving forward—from me at least, and quite a few others too, and rightfully so, so don't be surprised when you get silence—you won't receive a response unless you ask your questions civilly and politely, no matter how much you try to "mask" the ad hominem attacks in your opening post.

1. I got a DM explaining my penalty. Apparently, I posted before being granted permission, and I supposedly copied a link that caused another user to get banned. There was zero indication that the other user was penalized because of that link, and honestly, I don't see what's wrong with the link itself. To make matters worse, the post was deleted and I was penalized right after I replied to it.

2. Since this is just a continuation of the previous thread, I thought staying here was better than moving everything to the "Off-Topic" section, but fine, I accept the criticism. I'll ask over there if necessary.

3. I didn't repost the deleted content. I made an entirely new post with different content and structure. The only thing they share is a single link to publicly available media. I didn't mention the penalized user by name or quote a single word of theirs. Both posts are visible. They both cover the same topic, so the question is: is the issue the topic, or is it my post?
So, if I'm building on content from a link found here—which was deleted immediately after I commented on it—does that mean we aren't allowed to discuss it at all or even reference the link, even if it’s easily accessible via Google or anywhere else online?

4. I genuinely don't understand what you mean. Where, when, or to whom did I fail to ask a question civilly? And what "ad hominem" are you claiming is in my opening post? In 12 years on this forum, I've never been rude or insulted anyone. My posts haven't even been deleted in all that time, as far as I can remember.

I'd like an explanation of what's happening here. Why are perfectly normal posts that contribute constructively to the discussion being wiped out? I'm not complaining about the warning; I don't want to waste more time on this. It’s not about the warning, it’s about the freedom to discuss things. Give me the warning if you must, but why was the post deleted?

Casey Bennett2 said:4. I honestly can't wrap my head around where, when, or to whom I haven't asked a question in a civilized manner, so what kind of ad hominem are you even talking about in my opening post? In twelve years on this forum, I haven't been rude to anyone or insulted a single soul, and frankly, I don't think I've ever even had a post deleted in all that time...

Your entire intro to this thread is just a trolling attempt using ad hominem attacks against the moderators. If you've already reached your own conclusions, then stop spamming the forum with these supposedly "polite" questions that are really just a cover for unargued, dishonest nitpicking... if you actually have real questions, just ask them straight and you'll get an answer. As for all this talk about "purges" and "banning views that contradict the mod," all you're going to get is another warning card.

I’m just asking for someone to explain what’s happening here and why perfectly normal posts that contribute constructively to the discussion are being wiped out. It's not even about me complaining about getting a warning—I'm not going to waste more time on another post just for that—it’s about the discussion and the freedom to write. So, fine, give me a warning if you must, but why was the post deleted?

No, we don't just delete perfectly normal posts that add something constructive to the conversation.
And you already asked this very recently and received an answer from the supermod:

By the way, the supermods see everything that gets deleted, just like the admin does, so you can skip the "it wasn't me, I didn't know" routine... In your previous post, which got nuked because you quoted a warned post, you basically repeated the core reason for that warning right after the explanation was given, so spare us the "I couldn't have known which part caused the warning" act...

I feel like I owe it to myself to respond and finally put this to rest. I have zero interest—and even less time—to go in circles arguing nonsense. Since your take is based on a bunch of wrong assumptions, I figured I’d step in and set the record straight.

I quoted a post that wasn't even flagged, and nothing in it was problematic from my perspective. I just thought the topic was interesting enough to bring up. By the time I actually hit quote, there was already a massive pile of other comments written underneath it; that post had been live for hours before I decided to engage.

Then they wiped out the original post I was replying to, along with my own response that cited it. From what I can gather, it looks like a few other posts I remember seeing have vanished too. Just a superficial observation, but it's definitely happening.

Fine. The rules say a post—just talking about my own here—can be deleted without any explanation. Like the supermod said in the quote:

... for off-topic posts, trolling, or making sweeping generalizations..

My post wasn't off-topic. The subject is refugees and migrants in general—that covers everything from integration hurdles and the strain on host nations to the challenges migrants face, cultural divides, and how to fix them for everyone involved. This is exactly what we discussed in our private messages a few weeks ago when you deleted my previous post (which you eventually restored, so thanks for that). It wasn't trolling. And it certainly wasn't some crude generalization.

Look, people smarter than all of us combined are already tackling this issue. I never said—nor did I even imply—that this applies to every single immigrant out there. But it does apply to some. Period. Western society needs to find actual solutions for these situations. Those little girls need protection, plain and simple.

If you can't even discuss an issue—reasonably and respectfully—to demand an urgent solution, then you aren't going to solve anything. Covering up problems by deleting posts just to keep others from knowing the facts or sharing their thoughts doesn't help. It doesn't lead to constructive debate. It just builds frustration.

Look, my post didn't break any forum rules. The first one that got nuked was just following up on an earlier thread. The second one was structured differently, but it included a link to that article from Denmark—which is the whole reason we're even talking about this. Without that link, there is no discussion.

The link wasn't controversial to me—just a standard news article. I didn't see any reason not to repost it in a separate thread. Honestly, I had no idea that the other user I was replying to got banned specifically because of that link, or that their entire post was nuked just for linking to a mainstream media outlet that everyone else is already sharing. Seriously?

At least now I know for sure. My post got nuked because of the link, which basically means certain topics are off-limits here.

Of course the supermods and admins can see deleted posts. I'm counting on them to actually take a look at them.

And finally, I didn't even know which moderator deleted my post since there are several of you. I reached out to the moderation team as a whole. I stand by everything I said, and honestly, I don't see any ad hominem in my comments.

Calling it an ad hominem attack is just an excuse to shut me down. I can’t even post normal stuff here without my latest attempts getting nuked by the mods.I don't see a single reason within the content of the post itself to justify this. It feels like the moderators are just taking it upon themselves to decide what they want. What can we actually talk about on this forum? They just wipe out every single post that mentions anything they don't like.

It’s a shame to see where this forum is heading. I’ve spent a long time here, enjoying the endless debates and using this place to sharpen my own views. I've changed my mind on things, learned plenty, and hopefully taught someone else a thing or two along the way. It was good banter. Sometimes stupid, sure, but always entertaining.

So, I'm back in a place where I'm clearly not welcome—somewhere my desire to participate is met with deletions, as if I'm some entitled brat who needs permission just to have an opinion or share things I actually care about. Honestly? I don't even want to bother anymore.