Discussing a removal
I recently had a post removed and would just like to discuss with the person who removed it, their thought process behind it. I'm not the type to just brush it off as bullshit and just think I'm right and there is no reason for it. Im just struggling to find the reason behind it.
My post said: "he already covered that. Maybe try reading the post" and the reason for the removal talked about like how if you disagree with someone you dont need to be disrespectful yada yada" (sorry, short term memory isnt the best and im on my phone so i dont wanna go back and look at it again). I'm just wondering why that is percieved as a disrespectful thing to say. I mean, that seems very neutral to me. Is it just because I wasnt the OP? Like, if the OP had said "I already addressed that... maybe try reading the post before you comment" would that be removed? Is it just because I white knighted my ass into the situation?
I didnt insult the person. Its definitely not a show of respect, but I think its far from disrespect honestly. How can that be percieved as needing a removal? Just telling someone they should read the post? Is it disrespectful to suggest the common courtesy of reading the person's post if youre gonna comment on it? I informed him that his comment was already addressed in the person's post, and told him in a very neutral way to read the post. I didnt say his comment was useless or really any personal opinion on it that would be considered offensive.
Then I was called condescending and told that MY post was useless lol. I dont get it... should I just never mention that someone should actually read the post they are commenting on? It didnt have to turn into anything. Oh yeah! The message said something about feeling attacked. How am I attacking him? It was such a non-issue of a comment to say "maybe try reading the post"... is it just snarky? Are you inserting a tone of condescension that wasnt meant to be there? We cant hear the emotion behind a post. It was not meant to be a mean, smug tone. Why are you putting that on me? Why is the worst assumed there?
Id just like some clarity on the thought process behind why it is considered necessary to remove, because when I was reading why it was removed, it seemed as if the reasons werent even referencing the post in question. Like it was the wrong post or something. Ive had plenty of removals in the past where I thought "okay yeah I can see that. Fair enough." but this one has thrown me in the dark as to what is considered worthy of removal.