A question I recently asked, What, was the 'joy' of a hard bargain? has apparently been flagged as offensive by reason of being "political commentary". I conclude that on the basis of (a) an edit I rejected yesterday, soon after the question appeared, in which a fundamental example of a social norm was bowdlerized, quite at odds with the intent of the post, by a rewrite of the paragraph presented below, and (b) the recent request from a moderator that I 'delete the political commentary (in the "art of the deal" paragraph)'. The objection appears to be to this paragraph, wherein I example the ambivalent attitude toward the Yankee trader in present-day US:
That ambivalent attitude continues to this day, and is presently represented by the tacit public approval of prominent public figures in the US, whose chief claim to prominence rests on their having successfully cheated many elderly or otherwise vulnerable people through the enterprising practice of what is fondly if falsely proclaimed as the "art of the deal".
That the paragraph should be interpreted as political commentary is arbitrary; it is clearly a comment on prevailing social norms involved in unraveling the entirely linguistic question of my post.
As evidence of the arbitrary nature of the partisan interpretation of my question, wherein it becomes political commentary rather than a representation of a widely accepted view of a particular social norm, I'll point out that the phrase "the art of the deal" appears in the Hathi Trust corpus 2968 times. For a prominent example dovetailing quite nicely with my use of it, there is this from the 1994 Harpers:
Even Socrates gets in on the act, although he was probably not a Yankee, except perhaps in spirit.
The list presented on the Harper's cover might, in the 1980's for example, have included PC salesmen (e.g., Bill Gates), etc. There's nothing necessarily political about the paragraph, other than the possible interpretations involving politicians who might be implicated.
My question is, should the sort of tangential and peripheral interpretations represented by the objection to this question prompt (a) edits at odds with the intent of the post, and (b) moderator response to flags based on those arbitrary and entirely unavoidable interpretations?
I don't think the sort of tangential partisan bickering represented by objections to my paragraph as "political commentary" should either affect what I include in a question, or prompt moderator requests for rewrites. The latter are nothing more or less than subscription to one particular political viewpoint over another, equally valid viewpoint.
This can be marked as resolved as far as I'm concerned. It's evident that the position of the moderation team has calcified in favor of supporting and condoning politically-motivated bullying. I'll not comply with the bullying. The stakes are too trivial for me to even consider compliance.