-13

I've given examples to substantiate any of the opinions I've used in my answer and they're all being censored. What gives?

You apparently can't stay Zionists are nationalists. Even though the damn wikipedia article I linked to says it front and foremost, as if that was an opinion rather than a fact. You also can't call a regime that murders people murderous even when that is the explicit question.

Who would dispute any of these claims? Why is this opinion which is substantiate in my answer considered offensive? Further, why isn't it my liberty to state my own conclusion? Why can't I just accept the downvotes if they come?

Zionists are religious nationalists: neither the history of religious states nor nationalist-colonialist fervor should lead a reasonable person to expect anything other than atrocities from an apartheid state like Israel.

4
  • 3
    FWIW I agree with the opinion you’ve stated (even in the original form). But I agree with my fellow moderators that it isn’t entirely appropriate for this question, and the parts that are appropriate needed better referencing. Nov 3 '12 at 9:37
  • 3
    Your claim that skeptics.se is controlled by people of a certain religious background is offensive. Flagging as offensive, even though it'll seem like "censorship" to you. Dec 14 '12 at 9:34
  • Perhaps you might be interested in the new site Politics.
    – gerrit
    Apr 6 '13 at 19:06
  • This question appears to be off-topic because it is simply opinion based and a false persecution complex. Aug 22 '14 at 2:05
16

The question is not about Zionism, the parts we moderators edited out are not relevant for the question. We did get multiple complaints about your post, and in response to them edited out the opinion parts of your post.

This site is not the place to publish your opinions, whether you consider Israel to be a "murderous regime" or an "Apartheid state" is not relevant and only distracts from the actual question that was asked.

12

Please remember that this set is collaboratively edited and the purpose of the collaboration is to arrive to the best answers possible.

This includes getting the tone right, passing facts and not judgement. I think that this answer contains a lot of facts and is thus a valid answer, but the tone and the facts about Zionism were partially wrong and out of place (e.g. Wikipedia does not say the Zionists are necessarily religious).

This caused numerous flags and downvotes. When flags have merit, we act on them. In many cases, I declined a flag encouraging the flag owner to edit the answer directly.

So:

  1. The answer is not yours. We collaboratively edit it.
  2. The community should really focus on constructive criticism and on improving answers instead of limiting to flagging. Everybody can edit and there are many tools to prevent abuse.
  3. We don't support any form of censorship. However see point 1.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .