avatarEdward John

Summary

The author's article was removed from a publication for disagreeing with another author, despite an initial positive reception and constructive dialogue.

Abstract

The author expresses frustration over having their article removed from a publication due to a rule against criticizing other authors' work. The article in question was a respectful response to another piece, where the author agreed with some points but also presented their own views. After being initially accepted and even engaging in a thoughtful exchange with the original author, the article was later removed without explanation, leading to the author's removal as a writer. The author reflects on the absurdity of a publication that stifles differing opinions and questions the logic behind such a rule, highlighting the paradoxical nature of prohibiting disagreement in a forum supposedly dedicated to the exchange of ideas.

Opinions

  • The author believes it is absurd to be penalized for expressing a differing opinion in a publication that should encourage diverse viewpoints.
  • The author values the freedom to voice one's own opinions and is dissatisfied with the publication's restrictive policy.
  • The author points out the irony and illogical loop created by a rule that forbids disagreement, as it leads to a scenario where even agreeing could be seen as a form of disagreement.
  • The author is critical of the publication's decision to remove their article and their subsequent removal as a writer, suggesting a lack of openness to intellectual debate.
  • The author implies that the publication's owner is intolerant of differing opinions among their writers, which is counterproductive to fostering meaningful discourse.

A Publication Removed Me Because I Broke One Stupid Rule

Apparently, you’re not allowed to disagree with another author

Photo by Andrea Piacquadio from Pexels. Edited using Canva.

This is absurd. It doesn’t make any sense at all.

Okay, let’s back up a bit. So, what happened?

I recently wrote an article which was a response to someone else’s article. In it, I agreed with some of what they said, but expanded on the concept and came up with some of my own views.

My article did not insult the author. It didn’t even criticise them as a person. It merely disagreed with some of their points.

It was initially accepted into the publication. The author even posted a thoughtful response, and we had an intelligent little back-and-forth on the topic. They didn’t seem to be offended by what I wrote. They just didn’t necessarily agree with everything, which is fine.

Then a week or two later, the editor removed my article without any explanation.

I’ve since received an email saying they removed me as a writer. The reason? Because my article criticised another author’s article.

So, the publication’s owner doesn’t like their writers to have differing opinions. This doesn’t make any sense at all. Eventually, there will be no opinions left you’re allowed to have.

I don’t want to write for a publication that won’t allow me to voice my own opinions.

What do you think?

Here’s the irony.

If this very article you’re reading was published in that publication, you wouldn’t be able to disagree with me. By you telling me that it’s NOT okay to disagree, you would be disagreeing with me, which is against their rules.

If you post a response, you must agree with me and say it’s okay to disagree with people. This means you ARE actually allowed to disagree with me. Which means you CAN say it’s NOT okay to disagree with people. Which means you have to agree with me that it IS okay to disagree with people.

And on and on, round in circles until we all go insane.

But anyway, what do you think?

But be careful. Responses that disagree with me will be reported to the Opinion Police. They will throw custard in your face. Because their job has made them lose their minds.

More from me…

Medium
Medium Publications
Publications On Medium
Rules
Rant
Recommended from ReadMedium