The Guardian posted an article about the starvation going on in Venezuela due to falling oil prices. I made a comment and then got an email from The Guardian letting me know that my comment had been deleted as offensive.
MY FIRST RESPONSE TO THEIR EMAIL
This was my comment to The Guardian article
If you feed then they breed. That's why we have signs in parks that say "please don't feed the ducks and geese". What the whole world needs is mandatory tube-tying. No one should have more than 2 children. If you are poor then you should only have one. Now all these people living in extreme poverty should not have any children. We should require tube tying as a prerequisite to any aid all over the world. We have to be smarter than cats and dogs. You'll see a lot more of this as climate change reduces food production.
The article was about the starvation going on in Venezuela, presumably due to the fall in oil prices. The real problem is blind, well intentioned aid. The country itself has tried to distribute oil income with these disastrous results. Saudi Arabia achieved the same thing when it awarded an income simply based on head count. The result in both cases was more heads in the count. I suppose I could've emphasized that point by saying "If you SIMPLY feed then they SIMPLY breed." The point is that on a base level human beings act just like animals. Some people are offended at any mention of population management whatsoever because I haven't heard any politician in the US discussing this. A lot of our aid is based on the number of people in the household. Global Population Speak Out is a group addressing this issue. Your own David Attenborough has a YouTube video entitled "How Many People Can Live On Planet Earth?" Netflix has "Years of living dangerously" to emphasize the connection between climate change and overpopulation.
The whole notion of starving people is distressing. Jordan has had to finally limit the number of Syrian refugees that it has allowed within their borders. Is it Assad's fault that Syrians overpopulated and the drought caused by climate change reduced food production? No. Could he offer aid to anyone who agrees to only have one child? Yes. The king of Jordan was recently on the American program "60 Minutes" discussing this subject. Europe is buckling under the immigration pressure. Your own exit from the European Union is also a result of immigration. Immigration is not a solution to overpopulation. Trump is capitalizing on that. Climate change has been accelerated by population increase. WWII already illustrated that even 2 billion was already too many. Both Germany and Japan were willing to kill to get more room. A lot of people in the US are very offended by abortion or anything gay.
My short comment was designed to quickly draw the reader’s attention and illustrate how humans are so much like ducks and geese in our parks. Perhaps human beings can be reasoned with and persuaded to limit family size. Ducks and geese certainly cannot be reasoned with. We need to start tailoring our aid to meet this objective. Countries need to keep this in mind as artificial intelligence will reduce jobs. The notion of limit needs to be addressed and sooner rather than later. 25,000 children die every day from disease, hunger and malnutrition. Now that is offensive. My brilliant comment was not offensive. The starvation going on in Venezuela is offensive. My comment hit the nail right on the head.
Overpopulation will overcome any effort at relief unless our policies address real solutions. There is a LIMIT to anything and everything. The notion of LIMIT needs to be addressed. Another lazy reader simply flagged my comment as offensive and you took the bait. Perhaps that reader should be sent an email advising him/her not to read comments if their skin is so thin. Perhaps they should be warned that if they continue to flag good comments as offensive then they will not be allowed to make any comments and therefore not flag any good comments either. If that lazy reader had responded to the comment then perhaps I could've elaborated as I am here. Your removal of my comment was offensive while my comment itself really was not. Please feel free to forward this to the reader who flagged my comment as offensive. In the future such readers should be encouraged to respond to my comment and if you want to give me a heads up that they also found my comment offensive then I would make an effort to read and respond to their comment as I don't always check my comment activity. I've also noticed that you post articles and there are no comments. That is the height of intolerance and literary totalitarianism. Thanks.
GUARDIAN RESPONSE From: Moderation <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: RE: comment eliminated as 'offensive'
Hello, Thanks for your email. Your comment could have been considered offensive as per point 3 of our Community Standards - "We understand that people often feel strongly about issues debated on the site, but we will consider removing any content that others might find extremely offensive or threatening. Please respect other people’s views and beliefs and consider your impact on others when making your contribution." I understand that you may not have meant for your comment to be interpreted in this way, but please try to see how appearing to refer to Venezuelans as breeding like ducks and geese could be considered offensive. Your point about population is not in itself offensive, but the words you used are those we commonly see directed at other communities around the world as a way to dehumanize and degrade.
Point 9 of our Community Standards is relevant here - "Be aware that you may be misunderstood, so try to be clear about what you are saying, and expect that people may understand your contribution differently than you intended. Remember that text isn’t always a great medium for conversation: tone of voice (sarcasm, humor and so on) doesn’t always come across when using words on a screen. You can help to keep the Guardian community areas open to all viewpoints by maintaining a reasonable tone, even in unreasonable circumstances."
Best, Richie, Community Moderator
MY SECOND RESPONSE
You said my comment "could" be considered offensive. You sited your point 3 "..we will consider removing any content that others might find extremely offensive or threatening". By your own evaluation my comment "could" be considered offensive therefore it could NOT also be considered EXTREMELY offensive. In fact my comment doesn't even rise to the level of being offensive. There was no misunderstanding here. On a base level human beings act just like animals when it comes to reproduction. Biologically speaking our sole purpose for existence is to reproduce. That includes all human beings everywhere. This phenomenon displays itself more urgently in countries that have mismanaged and ignored their rising populations at their own peril. I illustrated that point by saying what do we do in our parks? We put up signs that say "Please don't feed the ducks and geese". I went on to say that we need mandatory tube tying world-wide. My guess is a female reader flagged the comment and then a female moderator removed the comment. And then you were left to defend their error. I thought the short comment would be very effective but I see now that perhaps a longer explanation might help. Bottom line, my comment was not offensive in the least and there was no misunderstanding. Some people cannot face the truth. Our planet is finite. You should've apologized for removing my comment and expunged that removal from my record. Please do so now. Thanks.