This morning I posted two comments in response to this article in the Huffington Post, this one, which took 20 minutes to appear (average time on this particular thread is 3 minutes – I checked).
1 hour ago (12:42)
Destructive benefits? More destructive than driving sick and disabled people into penury, homelessness, starvation and suicide?
More destructive than 10,600 people dying as a result of being forced onto workfare when they were clearly too ill (which they proved by dying)?
I do wonder if the major players in this cull of sick and disabled people – Cameron and IDS – are the most evil politicians this country has produced, or whether they are simply insane?
Then, about 40 minutes later, I posted this, about IDS’s plans to cut benefits for families with more than two kids (in the same article):-
IDS is too stupid to realise that the Swiftian advice for the poor to eat their children was satire, not a recommendation.
It was moderated out of existence.
However, at around the same time, the moderators approved a string of racist comments, and one advocating cutting IDS’s throat, a sentiment I have some sympathy with, but it has no place in a newspaper comments page.
So what the hell is going on there? Why was the first comment, which is nothing if not contentious,approved, yet the much shorter one, which at least had the virtue of being somewhat witty, get binned?
Could it be that the moderators are too stupid or poorly educated to understand it, and what they don’t understand they don’t approve?
I have no idea, but I’d love to know, and if you’re reading this, do come and explain why you allow racist and murderous comments, but bin my innocuous comment.
NB: I do know they’re not obliged to approve something just because I wrote it, but if you look at some of the moronic shit that they have approved in that thread, there can be no possible justification for not doing so.
As an afterthought, I append the following extract from Dean Swift’s satirical essay, in the hope that it might prove enlightening to the hard of thinking at the Huffington Post.
A Modest Proposal for preventing the children of poor people in Ireland, from being a burden on their parents or country, and for making them beneficial to the publick, Jonathan Swift (1729)
I shall now therefore humbly propose my own thoughts, which I hope will not be liable to the least objection.
I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee or a ragout.
I do therefore humbly offer it to public consideration that of the hundred and twenty thousand children already computed, twenty thousand may be reserved for breed, whereof only one-fourth part to be males; which is more than we allow to sheep, black cattle or swine; and my reason is, that these children are seldom the fruits of marriage, a circumstance not much regarded by our savages, therefore one male will be sufficient to serve four females. That the remaining hundred thousand may, at a year old, be offered in the sale to the persons of quality and fortune through the kingdom; always advising the mother to let them suck plentifully in the last month, so as to render them plump and fat for a good table. A child will make two dishes at an entertainment for friends; and when the family dines alone, the fore or hind quarter will make a reasonable dish, and seasoned with a little pepper or salt will be very good boiled on the fourth day, especially in winter.