Political Censorship on /n/

I've had comments deleted from /n/ because they did not lick the ass of a political partisan janitor working at the time, apparently.  He allowed off-topic vicious rants of one poltical viewpoint to remain, but posts with opposing viewpoints were deleted.  Is this what it boils down to on that board?  Only political points of view that agree with whoever is monitoring the board at the time is allowed?

>>1

>>1
/n/ is a fucking pit. If you go in there expecting intelligent, rational conversation, you've got another thing coming.

>>1 is a member of Stormfront

So what? Stormfront is one of the most politically open minded boards on the interwebs. And no I'm not joking.

>>5

Sup faggot.

Extremists, such as yourself I presume, are not open minded. Just because someone is "open minded" about the (negation of the) holocaust and slavery, doesn't mean they are politically open minded. But please, don't believe me. We'll do the open minded test. If you can answer yes to three or more questions, you are open minded (or if you want to test your stormfront buddies...). Answering paradox to question one is an automatic disqualification. Here goes:

1. Would you vote for a competent nigger that runs for president?
2. Do you have your doubts about capital punishment?
3. Would you want to live in a country based on communist values?
4. Do you think bombing every goddamn sandnigger to shit is immoral?
5. Are you open to same-sex marriage?

Take care!

1. No
2. No
3. No
4. No
5. Yes

>>6
Couldn't someone be incredibly close minded, yet say yes to all of those?

Close minded doesn't necessarily equal agreeing with one particular set of values.

>>8

How is this one set of values. Plenty of fags who hate commies, plent of commies who hate fags, plenty of niggers pro capital punishment, ETC ETC ETC times infinity.

It's three out of five. Really...it's not that hard to get 3 out of five. As the maker of the test I'd say:

Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes

1. Yes. Elections should be based on job competence and shouldn't be a beauty pageant.
2. No. Eye for an eye is just and fitting.  No reason to give a life time of free food and board to serial killers and rapists.
3. Yes. As long as the pay is good and quality of life is good.  Most people are not active politically anyways. 
4. Don't know the meaning of the word "sandnigger". But bombing without achieving a grand objective is pointless.  Iraq is a good example of a winning the battle, but failing the war on terror.
5. No. Marriage has been between man and woman for a few thousand years.  Don't see a need to redefine it for a select few.  Equal benefits, maybe.

In regards to the OP, I think everyone should be allowed to express their values, no matter how different or strange.  If there is no free speech, then censorship will gradually increase to the point of speech suppression like China.  I believe most individuals can make an informed choice and the truth will win out at the end.

if you've ever read the 4chan rules, they actually state that racist remarks, flaming and trolling are not allowed outside of /b/. which means the janitors could technically delete about 80% of /n/, but oh well. i assume you were flaming and got reported by whoever you were insulting, that's your own problem.

>>11 Or alternatively just encountered a shitty janitor.

1. Yes. 'Competent' being the important word and 'nigger' being irrelivant.
2. Yes. I agree with it in principal but the current system cannot administer it properly.
3. No. Shit no.
4. Yes. There's got to be good reason for military action. "Good reason" will of course change with your prespective.
5. Undecided. There's arguments on both sides that make good sense.

So I guess that's three yeses, and /n/ is a partisan cesspool. Clear rules need to be set down about what does and does not qualify as news. 'Unbiased' would proably need to be the first criteria.