ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Politics and Social Issues»
  • Politics & Political Science

Equality and Equity Sit at the Back of the Bus Driven by Editorial Expediency

Updated on August 4, 2012

Dirty Libbers get the Whipping Post

Well, my censor-sentence, sans conviction, sans trial, sans due process, sans any fair (morally - not legally, so don't give me this crap that HP is privately owned and administered!) chance to give my say, is nonetheless some 3 hours from expiration. And lord help HP (and any realistic chance of this site operating "in the black" for at least 2 years) if, at 8:29 exactly, my test post somewhere in the political fora does not go through.

In the mean-time, I thought I'd write a hub expressing my still sizzling disgust at the thinly veiled tactics of partisan censorship. This hubber (Hi! yours truly, the author of this hub) was banned for 3 days for "posts that you made in the topic 'Illegals Voting For Republicans'. Having reviewed every thread and "sub-thread" or offshoot within that vast domain within which I took part, and yes every post of yours truly and enough context to remind me what the hubbub was that got this bub snubbed, I discovered that - AYE! - there is no rub!

Upon said examination, and my VERY typical "look! shiny!" wandering off-course to see other threads, I did quite serendipitously avail myself of the discovery of quite the heinous and disgusting trend, that, for a breath, had me shocked and more that pi... oops.. careful, Stanley..angry, until I understood that the HP fora and its Big Brother(s) are no better than and theirs.

Now, being fully aware of my gargantuan bias, I, as a seasoned (but amateur) writer, employed diligently those tactics and practices that forced me to "check myself" at every turn. Yeah, yeah - Strunk and White can claim some credit, as can Barbara Whitlock (of - and no, not new wisdom, but old), Rex Trulove (also of Helium, but not a paid admin/professional as Barbara), and a few other online venues (sites), varying my search terminology to minimize the effect of said bias. Four such sites are listed here:

What I found was the boringly repeated "duh" that private sites are not bound by the First Amendment or the U.S. Constitution, period; nor by the ethics and morals of fairness, honesty, objectivity, responsible editorship, or decency of any kind.

In other words, "It's Their House". Fine. But must some sites, and some seemingly white-hooded censors within said certain sites be so flagrantly unbalanced in their enforcement of "T.O.U" (Terms of Use"?? This bias and "old boys club" mob-rule is rampant in most politically oriented discussion boards all over the web, but I would think that a site that is supposed to attract actual writers, would set the bar higher. I have my doubts:

Oh, now THAT'S A HOOT! It would appear as though the powers that be saw fit to go all George Orwell on that very link which proves my point - THUS PROVING MY POINT!!! - only thus through their own actions rather than my own words! How very collegial of them! Now, if I were to go into first person specifics, I'm afraid I might indulge the rage pulpit a bit too voraciously, and thus look like a self-serving whiner. I have provided the above links so that readers can do that at their leisure, and stop at THEIR discretion, not mine.

It does seem quite questionable, nay, perhaps even unfair, to market your site, or otherwise group it among those "sites for writers'. Dare I say that that sets the reader/writer/webber up to expect a standard of behavior, editorial, expositional AND interactive which expectation, here at Hubages anyway, all too often leaves one bitterly disappointed, and questioning whether putting up with that nonsense to earn a few pennies here and (woo hoo!!!!) a dime there, is not Pure D selling out.

In a matter now of single digit minutes, this author is going to test the credibility of the censors in at least one aspect of their conduct. If they pass, then you can bet your dominant hand that I am going to be back on the fora, and testing the boundaries both for sheer, id placating "you didn't change NUTHIN', coppers!", and for professional (okay, amateur) writing purposes and research.

In either case, it is not one person's personal aesthetics that determines that THIS person can say "ass" but that person cannot, that a liberal will be shown the door, and a conservative wiill be shown Big Brother's wine cellar. Oh, would that be so terribly true, then the whole concept of serious, legitimate online journalism, literature, or talented exposition of any kind, worthy of the same respect as our hard-cover mass-producing counterparts, will forever be a lark, and no "real" writers (or publishers!!!!!!!) will ever take us seriously.

There is something to be said about discretion and good taste. But if the "whoever wears the pants bears the key to speeches' door" trend continues in this, one example of the flaws of capitalism, there may never be the chance to say it; not on HubPages, anyway.


Submit a Comment

No comments yet.