Most Helpful Guy
I once pointed out that nations that under-breed and tolerate abortion statistically vote for their own gradual extinction. This is readily evident with how fast much of Europe is disappearing. I said that "any nation that will jail you for breaking a bird egg, but will celebrate a selfish mother killing off a future payer-inner of Social Security in the hopes of gaining brief personal convenience, is a nation that forfeits its right to exist under Heaven."
This is meant to reflect thought. When we do see Social Security more in danger than ever, with fewer statistically paying into it than ever before, and abortion being a direct root cause of that, could it not be because the act violates the laws of nature and nature's God, and that this is a logical fallout?
My original comment was removed as "nonsense." Not because they could explain to me how it was, but because enough posters on this site were offended by the implications, that they lobbied to have my postulation silenced. Child sacrifice on the altar of convenience is one of the sacraments of this age to the idols of this age. And I got censored for iconoclasm.
Showing real-world consequences of adherence to this cultural assumption of a "right" that has "no long-term consequences" led to existential panic in the hearts of those who complained against me. But that did not make my words untrue, let alone "nonsense." It simply meant that the implications for the future - especially for the eternity - of those who are guilty; was unbearable for them to hear.
However, the censorship here usually is fair. Most of the time, they go after mean-spirited trolls who are engaging in actual abuse. Like when one gal posted about her husband being in prison for fraud, and some troll was railing about how he "should have been executed." Clearly, just to stir up trouble. That comment was removed, and should have been removed. It violates the principle of "eye for an eye," which is supposed to mean that punishments fit the crime, and was clearly rude and out of place.
I was trying to promote self-examination: "Have our cultural values not become suicidally backwards?" The other guy was being a dick. The danger, is when the censors lack discernment to know which is which. They need to vote based on OP intent and purpose, not based solely on popular reaction nor on selection bias. Perhaps sending posters an inquiry of their intent behind a challenged comment before removing it would be better.4
Most Helpful Girl
I don't think that it goes far enough, truthfully.
Spammers and catfish are allowed to be here and rewarded for such. Some moderators and even administrators are allowed and encouraged to make derogatory commentary about women, which if the situation were reversed, would be removed in a second.1