Yes! We've had this in the past. Every time certain political topics are brought up in chat, the moderator's iron fist descends on me! But now there are two or maybe three of us apparently trespassing political red-lines. However the political red line is guarded and legitimized by appeal to accusations such as "hatred" or "propaganda"!

So I wish people could look at the deleted conversations between me, Avicenna and GreatBigBore in this chat room so that they would be able to verify for themselves how legitimate goldPseudo's charges against me and other involved users were. I want to know where we've been particularly "hateful" or spreading "hateful propaganda" in our conversations.

Like I suggested above, it seems to me it's more about preserving the mainstream political narrative than the civility law that goldPseudo often appeals to, to justify his repressive decisions when users like me make statements that are not popular with the political establishment in the West. So I cite here what I asked him directly in chat and request clarifications on this:

@goldPseudo Is there an unwritten, undeclared law in SE to ensure that users' stated opinions fall within the mainstream political narrative favored by the political establishment in the West? If there's such an SE law on political correctness, let us know, otherwise throwing out unqualified accusations of "hatred" at people simply because they disagree with the mainstream can itself be contested by charges of "hatred" and "discrimination against minority", not to mention that at least with regards to 9/11, alternative theories are not even "unpopular". Today the official 9/11 theory, is the most unpopular theory.

goldPseudo responded to this question by chat suspension for the two of us. I think he thinks his decision no matter how unfair would be supported by the SE admins, so he can just proceed without caring to even look legitimate in his actions. Is it because of the reason I quoted above? That SE prefers to suppress legitimate opinions simply because they are unfavorable with the mainstream political narrative? If yes, doesn't that make SE politically biased? And finally, what is the right course for users like me who disagree with SE's undeclared political bias? Would it be like "Just shut up and go away! You're a trouble maker here because of our political sensitivities!" or "No, you can enjoy our site but you have to conform to our political orientation regardless of how legitimate yours are in terms of evidence and reason."


  • 1
    Don't bother. Many tried to escalate issues with moderators before on Islam SE, to no avail. It's annoying and frustrating, but no one really found a solution. It's supposed to be a somewhat democratic forum; but it's not working well.
    – user12680
    Sep 16, 2016 at 14:54
  • You still didn't figure it out.This is not a place to discuss sensitive subjects, and by that I mean any subject that could stigmatise a party. And I'm quiet sure most of what goldPseudo does is according to SE rules, even on sensitive cases he'd consult his higher up.
    – user19208
    Sep 16, 2016 at 16:02

1 Answer 1


preserving the mainstream political narrative

There is no such thing as "mainstream political narrative" in "the west" (which is a pretty big place) about any issue. If you ask what the mainstream political narrative is to supports of free market, they will say it is state-control. If you ask it to people in favor of more control, they will say it is free-market.

Today the official 9/11 theory, is the most unpopular theory.

Yes, I have no doubt about that. It must feel good to be among the enlightened, and to tell yourself that the mossad, the CIA itself (or whoever it is in your mind) is behind it, not muslims. But the official theory is the only one supported by facts, including many claims by the terrorists. And as far as I know, saying that the absence of tangible proof in favor of one theory is itself a proof is not a reliable way of analysing the world.

conform to our political orientation regardless of how legitimate yours are in terms of evidence and reason

A past event is a series of actions that took place in the past. A political orientation is a set of law proposals, or a social organisation proposal.

Claiming an event did not happen is not a political orientation, although it may be due to one if the event in question contradicts the validity of your law proposals.

Despite the recent surge in deconnection with reality in many places (watch the last US election), facts are not politically oriented. The filter you apply on them, though, seems to be.

I think trying to eliminate conspirationist speculations on this site is not a bad decision on the part of moderators.

Please try to keep your feet back on earth.

  • There are a lot of interesting things about your post. First you're denying with too much confident some too evident facts! The term "mainstream" (as a reference to popular ideas, perceptions and norms) is itself already a mainstream concept and that in the West! Though it is used more often in reference to popular corporate media (See: Wikipedia: Mainstream media) and by consequence can be by used to refer to popular ideas propagated by them.
    – infatuated
    Jan 5, 2017 at 16:39
  • And more fundamentally and on the ideological level, there's also a consensus that however varied the ideological and factional positions in the West seem to be yet the entire Modern western civilization is founded on a set of ideological perceptions that are not necessarily taken as granted by other Civilizational domains. See Wikipedia: "Western world" and "--Modern political definitions" in particular and Euro-centrism.
    – infatuated
    Jan 5, 2017 at 17:11
  • And as for 9/11 I'm not at all interested to pick up a debate with you since your reference to "9/11 and facts" already suggests that you have little knowledge of "9/11 and facts" and thereby you seem to be the one with little feet on Earth on that! For a start, though, you may want to have a look this article to see what important facts the official narrative ignores! Having said this, the 9/11 was beside my point above: which was whether there's any SE law that prohibits us to discuss non-mainstream views in general!
    – infatuated
    Jan 5, 2017 at 17:12

You must log in to answer this question.

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