The ruckus came from me explaining that Santorum's wish "to fight" abortion, same-sex "marriage," and the legalization of marijuana wasn't a "theocracy."
I later asked why my post was getting such a response. A Red State moderator helped me understand.
So in other words don't correct or question what's written in the article especially if the piece is written by the editor.
A post of mine was deleted as well since I guess I was "being an on-line ass" to others. My post, in a cheeky manner, responded, "Did you think of that yourself?" or something to that effect; I cannot remember exactly.
It was ultimately a stupid question since it was implying that I was supporting Santorum's process of legalizing his social views. No where did I say that he was right in his efforts. What Santorum wants to do isn't a "religious dogmatic view" (though the editors and others on Red State think it is, or else why the writer's frame Santorum in such a way) since such views can also be perfectly and soundly be held on a secular stance.
Another post was wiped out of existence because it spoke ill of libertarians even though the post I was responding to also did, but that post wasn't deleted.
From what has happened as detailed above tells me the editors of Red State aren't too high on people who may be a little sympathetic to candidates that aren't be triumphed in a given article.
Others have noted this issue as well when denouncing any "theocracy" accusation (I get the feeling that social conservatives who aren't on the whole "let the state choose their own morality" wagon are immensely unpopular among the Red State editors). See below.
Okay, I read 1689's comment. I don't see anything "passive aggressive" or rude or inconsiderate. Wait, he questioned the "theocracy" usage which was written by the editor. He wrote this: "All would be better than some free-wheeling, do-whatever-you-want small-government! society." Nevermind. He also "attacked the site" by writing, "NR has enough authors trying to fundamentally transform what it means to be a conservative. Apparently the problem is not limited to NR." Bill S. won't have that. On the "blacklist" you shall go.
The overall tone of Bill S.'s reasons on banning fall apart when he turns to the "you're mean" reason. The whole "keeping the peace" is talk because it's him really saying, "We don't want conservatives who have different opinions - who cannot form their opinions with the most softest snow so not to harm the feelings of the editors - to share their thoughts." It's such a cop-out move.
I learned that another has-been poster was also banned, back in 2012. The comments on his article that explained his disdain of the ban got the trolls out of the wood work. I'm not sure of the politics of those that mock him, but I wouldn't be surprised if they were socially "progressive" libertarians or douchebag liberals. It seems like that the day he wrote it those that were aware of the ban took advantaged of the moment - they maybe Red State posters who agreed with the moderators.
Here's what Calvin and another has-been poster said:
I remember reading that Red State doesn't tolerate birthers, truthers and Palin haters and for good reason: They're idiots. But why ban people who "attack" the editors regarding the content of which they post? This tells me they're cowards, and assholes.
