SoylentNews

aristarchus [soylentnews.org] writes:

Once again!

aristarchus [soylentnews.org] writes:

So now, Soylentils, at long last, we are at the point where a decision is to be made. Do we accept submissions composed entirely of the term "alt-right" repeated ad nausem, or do we demand that when the Editors suggest that a submitter correct a submission, and re-submit it, as if that meant there was some chance of the submission being accepted, instead of just a dismissal of political views that do not sympathize with the Techische Neue Recht predisposition of the Editors of the SoylentNews, that there is some chance of acceptance?

In this spirit, and along the lines of #Freearistarchus!, I offer a "fixed" version of the "alt-right" submission that is causing so much of a twitter amoung Soylentilati. Viola!

As reported in SoylentNews [soylentnews.org], some people believe that the alt-right is not repeated enough in SoylentNews submissions.
[Note: the generation of self-referential references was a common practice of the Federalist Society, particulary in their articles defending the Second Amendment. But since it was a daisy-chain of pederastry, the references amount to a damp squid. [reddit.com] ]

Thus, the original submission:

Alt-right Alt-right Alt-right Alt-right Alt-right Alt-right Alt-right Alt-right Alt-right Alt-right
        Alt-right Alt-right Alt-right Alt-right Alt-right

        Alt-right Alt-right Alt-right Alt-right Alt-right Alt-right Alt-right Alt-right Alt-right Alt-right Alt-right Alt-right Alt-right Alt-right Alt-right Alt-right Alt-right Alt-right Alt-right

        Alt-right Alt-right Alt-right Alt-right Alt-right Alt-right Alt-right Alt-right Alt-right Alt-right Alt-right Alt-right Alt-right Alt-right Alt-right Alt-right Alt-right Alt-right Alt-right Alt-right Alt-right Alt-right Alt-right Alt-right Alt-right Alt-right Alt-right Alt-right Alt-right Alt-right Alt-right Alt-right Alt-right Alt-right Alt-right Alt-right Alt-right Alt-right Alt-right Alt-right Alt-right Alt-right Alt-right Alt-right Alt-right Alt-right Alt-right Alt-right Alt-right .

        Alt-right .

        For janrinok.

    Now from this, we learn several things, which is more than we learned from "The Case of the Missing Journal", as much as martyb did his best to get to the bottom of it. First, janrinok has it in for aristarchus. We knew that. Second, The Mighty Buzzard has still not confessed his responsibility for the entire sotted affair, and until he does, well, carrion will prevail.

But more, and explicitely to the point, janrinok in IRC stated that he was writing a script to identify "aristarchus sub" and "alt-right" with an automatic rejection. At first I cried at the cruelty of the man, but then I realized he had a point, that automatization could replace us all, especially Andrew Yang, and so I set him up the bomb, a submission that his script could not fail to detect and reject.

Only problem is, the script still invited me to re-edit, and resubmit. So here we are. Your move, janrinok!

And now, a message from the Editors, on the Latest Alt-right, alt-right, alt-right submission!

We're sorry, your submission "aristarchus [soylentnews.org] writes: Alt-right Alt-right Alt-right Alt-right Alt-right Alt-right A" was declined for the following reason:
Easy for me to answer. I didn't reject your submission. Did the rejection have my initials on it? No, then it wasn't me. Secondly, we read all of your submissions. We also have a field where we can write our comments for other editors to see. I will write 'No Thanks' or 'Pass' in that field if I feel that the submission does not deserve any further attention from me. If we all decline your submission then it will get rejected because nobody else wishes to do all the work for you. You know what is required. If you do not want to make an effort then it is unlikely that we are going to do it for you. Put it in your journal. Thirdly, I don't 'have it in for you' - if you look at who has accepted those submissions of yours that have been accepted, you will note that I figure quite prominently there. Finally, the script was a bit of humour on the editorial channel. But now that you bring it up again, I might write it for my own computer at home so that I can concentrate on the subs that are more likely to be of interest to our community.

The editors felt it inappropriate for them to correct the issue themselves. Please feel free to correct the issue yourself and resubmit.

Ah, an invitation to resubmit, again! Shirley the Eds are serious about it, this time! Frankly, I do not see initials, or any other form of acknowledgement on rejections notices. Do the eds know what they are feeding to we lowly Soylentils? I get rejection messages, and invitations to resubmit, but I have no means of messaging back! The Eds are in the High Castle in a Kafka Novel, thus there is nothing I can do.

I don't even know who this screed is from, although I suspect janrinok, given the slightly British sense of umbrage. And again, no indication of what "work" that eds have to do for my submissions. In almost all of them, this and its predecessors exempted, I have always provided links to the original source, and even inserted hyperlinks where Soylent has stripped them. What more do you want from me? My god, do I have to start submitting articles praising Windoze? Must I assert that Libertarian Greed is good and not stupid? TMB started this. A public apology for advocating censorship would be in order.

Yours most sincerely,
aristarchus, of Samos

Original Submission