Posted an answer to this question What logical fallacy is "If you don't like it, move!"? which was deleted.

where given that this SE site is purportedly about philosophy, was reminded of the Faurisson Affair

Later Chomsky requested that the essay not be used in this manner, since he believed the French intellectual community was so incapable of understanding freedom of speech that it would only confuse them further, but his request came too late for the book to be changed.

and a more recent quote by Noam Chomsky

Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you’re really in favor of free speech, then you’re in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you’re not in favor of free speech. Noam Chomsky

Am not able to discern any logical reason for the deletion of the answer, and no reason were provided therefor. Can only surmise that the deletion is some form of censorship being practiced by Philosophy SE users or a lack of understanding of the answer. Am asking this question to get the reasons from the individuals who cast those "delete" votes.

What is the reason for deleting the answer?

  • @FrankHubeny "Should I ever down-vote a question or answer, I provide a comment explaining why." What happened to your commitment at this answer? An unintentional omission? Nov 29, 2018 at 0:18
  • @GeoffreyThomas Can you kindly explain the reason for deleting this users' answer to the question? Nov 29, 2018 at 0:20
  • I upvoted your question. I think it is good to ask these kind of questions here. Although we disagree on this I hope you continue to post questions and answers here. Nov 29, 2018 at 4:32
  • Your answer reads more like a blog post than an answer to a question, which is explicitly not what this site is about. Cut at least half of what you wrote, take out the polemics, and try to make the answer at least look like you're attempting to be objective.
    – Not_Here
    Dec 6, 2018 at 7:34
  • 1
    @Not_Here Do not write "blog" posts. A user is free to not agree with the content of an answer or a question. The answer is objective. If you believe it is not that is due to your own biases or affinities for a particular narrative or continuance of nationalistic lore or stories; as the question deals with two forms of nationalistic philosophies. Not sure what you mean by "polemics". Censoring questions and answers based on subjective criticisms is contrary to the fundamentals of philosophy itself and paints this site as a popularity contest, not a site where philosophy is the primary concern. Dec 6, 2018 at 16:14
  • 1
    Yep and you will be the millionth person to die on this hill. This site is not about “doing” philosophy, it is not a forum, nor is it a holy grail or bastion of philosophical thought. Philosophy, as in doing philosophy, is explicitly not the primary concern. Search meta and you can find tons of questions about this. Go somewhere else if your goal is to partake in a forum where doing philosophy is the primary concern.
    – Not_Here
    Dec 6, 2018 at 18:38
  • @Not_Here No, change the name of your site to "this site is not really about philosophy", but rather, your site is about a popularity contest, criticism, or whatever else your site or "this" site supposedly is about and does "do" here, which you have failed to do in your comments, to avoid continuing the false advertising that your site is currently engaged in, which apparently has nothing whatsoever to do with philosophy. Otherwise, as stated above, you are free to disagree with the facts presented in the answer. Dec 7, 2018 at 1:46
  • Lmfao are you okay dude?
    – Not_Here
    Dec 7, 2018 at 2:12
  • @Not_Here The answer should not have been deleted in the first place. Perhaps the censorship here is in the "western" philosophical tradition of the story of the fictional character "Socrates" being sentenced to death for corrupting the youth, and that is what you were referring to by "die on this hill". Dec 7, 2018 at 2:51
  • No, I'm referring to you thinking you're going on a moral crusade against censorship by complaining about the rules of an internet question and answer site you're choosing to post on.
    – Not_Here
    Dec 7, 2018 at 3:16
  • @Not_Here There is no "moral crusade" or "complaining". If you have constructive insight and input, kindly post an answer to the question. Dec 7, 2018 at 3:20
  • And yet there is... If only saying words made them so, how poignant.
    – Not_Here
    Dec 7, 2018 at 4:53
  • @Not_Here Then you concur that your comments above have not provided any constructive insight or input that adds to the current answer, correct? Dec 7, 2018 at 16:43

1 Answer 1


Your answer appeared in the "Low Quality Posts" review queue. That is where I voted to delete your answer because I did not think it was answering the question. Rather it seemed to have some other motivation in being there. I may have made a mistake, but in looking at the answer again, I continue to find it puzzling.

I recommend writing a different answer that is (1) briefer than the first answer and (2) focuses specifically on the question so there is no confusion.

Don't worry if something is deleted, down-voted or flagged. Take that as feedback. People (myself included) may make mistakes in giving that feedback. Find a way to work around it.

In a comment you quoted my profile, "Should I ever down-vote a question or answer. I provide a comment explaining why." I have updated my profile so it is clearer:

Should I ever down-vote a question or answer, I provide a comment explaining why.

However, I very rarely down-vote. Instead of down-voting I prefer to flag posts, usually answers, as low quality. I may also vote to delete low quality posts should they appear in the review queues. Occasionally, I even vote to close questions. I find this more effective than down-voting.

  • What part of the answer, in your view, did not directly answer the question? How is "brief" related to the question or answer? Nov 29, 2018 at 7:05
  • @guest271314 The question is asking for the name of a fallacy that matches the described situation or to argue that there is no fallacy. Being brief means focusing on that question without adding distracting information. Use references, and quotes of those references, to justify any assertions you make. These references support the answer and give the reader a place to go for more information. Nov 29, 2018 at 13:23
  • @guest271314: You effectively argued for several possible takings, both on the level of "fallacy or not" and on the level of possible understandings and implications of the proposition proper. By that, you did offer possibilities, but not address/answer the question. See the first part of this answer of mine here on meta (including references to help center and blog posts of the makers of StackExchange) why this has no place here. We are not here to argue, we are here to deliver facts.
    – Philip Klöcking Mod
    Nov 29, 2018 at 17:11
  • @FrankHubeny Perhaps you would not categorize your criticism of the answer as being one form of the active version of what is described at the OP "What logical fallacy is “If you don't like it, move!”?", though objectively, that is what your vote to delete the answer is. It is difficult to compare intelligensia class responses from different regions, for example, do the English or German intellectual class reject, criticize and delete ideas which they do not understand or understand and dislike more than the American version, and in this case it matters not. The answer stands on its own. Nov 30, 2018 at 3:04
  • @PhilipKlöcking The answer does directly answer the question. There is no "argument" made whatsoever, only facts, what you describe as "possibilities", based on facts presented in the question. Users criticizing an answer they do not like or understand does not convert the answer to an "argument"; nor does simply alleging an "argument" make one. Your attempt to cast any portion of the answer as an "argument" is refuted, here and now; as that is merely your own arrogance and predisposed intellectual bias that you demonstrate. Deletion of the answer is on its face inconsistent with philosophy. Nov 30, 2018 at 3:17
  • @FrankHubeny Following your approach, we should burn every copy of the text attributed to "Aristotle", Politics, and James Joyce's Ulysses as being simply too voluminous in their own form, for violating not being "brief". There are no "worries" or "motivations". Once the discussion of such a sort described by the OP is commenced, it depends upon the individuals involved to what extent they attempt to parse theirs and the other participants' logic. If an individual is intent on seeking a fallacy, they can find them; both within their own and the "other"'s nationalist philosophies. Nov 30, 2018 at 3:27

You must log in to answer this question.

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