Recently, I've had an essay post removed by NVI and got hit with a warning point for explaining my beliefs for why NSG should either make the decision to allow for both far right or far left ideologies (in this case, it was Nazism and Communism) or to ban both if those are deemed to be too bad of a fit for this community because of historical reasons. It was in response to a post in the thread explaining why there is the current status quo of Nazism and Communism receiving unequal treatment in terms of what isn't allowed here- despite both having atrocities committed under their name.
I attempted to explain why this interpretation was in error from my perspective and that it is indeed more sensible to tolerate both or to do away with both to not be perceived to have any biases as a matter of fairness, asides from of course- if its Max Berry deciding that for his website- he wants there to be one idea but not the other idea present. If that is the case, this is all a waste of time and no more needs to be considered because I've lost. But can NSG indeed call itself a true political debate forum if only more centrist ideas are accepted?
The post wasn't in bad faith because it doesn't equate to whataboutism in my judgement. Rather, it was one other moderator wanting to shut down any further discussion about it and another moderator enforcing their whims, and I failing to see the post before I submitted it and yes- I really do have to plead ignorance in that I may've made a careless mistake.
But even if I did see the moderator request that there be no more NSG type posts in that thread about the new rule changes- where else on the entire website would I have posted it in if nowhere else was on topic even tangentially? I wasn't about to try starting a brand new thread about the topic of biases enshrined here of what should be or shouldn't be accepted in terms of opinion and why, when the existing topic discussing the rule changes seemed the most suitable place and I couldn't be sure it'd go over well. Peradventure it'd be locked and me punished worse than what I got here.
What can be more "good faith" than to discuss the rationale of the new policy and whether its truly good objectively speaking than in the on topic thread on the new rule changes? The only reason Nazism was discussed so much was because it is in explaining that the typical over generalizations about it are wrong. I was otherwise definitely on topic.
Am I ultimately in the right or wrong on this?
If I'm not, I'll take my sanction. But if I'm in the right, I don't want the warning and it'd be nice if the post was restored to where it was, but I'm okay with it being shelved because I may be at fault legitimately. I feel that I've suffered enough as of late. But can understand if I get no mercy in this instance.
There is no way I can ever recreate my argument. I perhaps didn't communicate it in the best way, but the broader point was to illustrate why I so fiercely contend that what's so villified here isn't actually inherently any worse than any other political movements that did wrong like ISIS when the proper context exists and perhaps should be more recognized in that it explains the causes of historical events.
