tv22 wrote:
"She wasn't racially profiled. She was asked to remove her scarf so her identity could be verified. Tough to live in the modern world where we actually can see each other's faces."
to which I replied
"Sigh. One can still see a woman's face when she wears a head scarf. You're thinking of a veil. A scarf, at most, keeps one from seeing a woman's hair. But how interesting that in the "modern" world, women must be forced to reveal that whether they wish to do so or not, this little issue of consent being bypassed for the sake of "freedom."
How far shall we take this modernity? Perhaps women could be forced to take their tops off in public, for surely we'd be able to verify their identities with even greater certainty, then. Maybe we could force them to strip naked altogether, before (as men) we showed how truly progressive we had become by clubbing them over the head and dragging them back to our caves for further "examination."
Do you even hear yourself?"
This comment was (what else) "detected as spam" a few times (that would be Disqus' fault) but when the most recent copy of it was censored, it was marked as having been removed, not as having been detected as spam, implying that somebody at Entertainment Weekly was at fault, this time. I reposted the comment, once more, and had something to say before departing
"Note to mods: Please read comments BEFORE you remove them. I've had to repost the above comment several times just to get it to stick. The first few times would have seem to have been the fault of Disqus, but this last time it looks like something done by somebody at EW.com, somebody who doesn't understand what sarcasm is.
This is not Wikipedia. When I have to fight to protect my content, that's not something I signed on for. That's not how comments on sites are generally expected to work. When I find that I have to get into such a fight just because I've spoken against cultural intolerance, that's unacceptable and it gets exhausting. One should be able to post something ONCE and have it stay. One shouldn't have to get into a test of wills just to speak about anything at all, least of all to express opposition to bigotry.
I wrote to EW about this problem last night, and this is the response I get? Really? Their staff gets in on the censorship? Classy. Until I get a more positive response, I'm going to conclude that EW and Disqus are more trouble than they're worth and urge people to avoid both. Who needs this?"
