Article rejected on account of being accurate?

[RuvapSemaj]

I recently submitted an excellent and accurate article entitled "Nietzschean Philosophy as It Applies to American Security Policy", this article attempted to apply the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche. At the end of the article was a disclaimer "*Note: This Analysis of Nietzsche is simply an exercise in alternative thinking in the political and rhetorical spectrum it in no way represents the personal views of the author or of the site where it is posted.*"

If you are familiar with Nietzsche you will understand why the disclaimer may need to be made, after all Nietzsche advocated an "amoral" world. And what is called "active nihilism" affirming reality as it is rather then attempting to end suffering and poverty. Nietzsche argues that the root cause of both of these things is the attempt to vilify them rather than moralize them, by accepting reality and suffering as an opportunity to be individual we avoid the world of "The Last Man."

All of this was clearly mentioned and explained in my article and is an accurate representation of applying Nietzsche to american policy and what positive results it may offer. The article was initially accepted but then it was rejected for the following reason:

This article was accepted by mistake. We cannot consider content that promotes this way of thinking or promotes the idea of inaction/indifference in the case of genocide. Do not resubmit.

After rereading the terms of service and writing submission guidelines I found nothing to indicate that an accurate analysis of Nietzsche was against the rules. Perhaps Nietzsche was a lunatic, but does that mean that writing about his idea's is not allowed? This facet of Nietzschean ideals has been the subject of hundreds of qualified writers such as:
William Rasch, The Henry H. H. Remak Professor of Germanic Studies at Indiana University
Michael Dillon, Lecturer at University of Lancaster
Julian Reid, Lecturer at University of London about International Politics
James Der Derian, Professor of Political Science at the University of Massachusetts
David Owen, Deputy Director of the Centre for Post-Analytic Philosophy at University of Southampton
Wendy Brown, Professor of Political Science at UC Berkeley

And countless others whose writings support the case that I make in this short (approximately 700 word) analysis of Neitzsche.

How can I contest the review of this article and have it considered for re-submition? Or perhaps I am wrong, should this sort of article not be put on Constant-Content as means of meeting the Existential.com request for Philosophical Analysis?

[jadedragon]

Sounds like a pretty clear reason for rejection and I doubt you can get this rejection overturned. Maybe there was a complaint or maybe someone on the site realized it was not appropriate. I support the decision - there is no reason to have offensive content here as it just hurts all of the writers. Good luck with selling it elsewhere.

[RuvapSemaj]

Sounds like a pretty clear reason for rejection and I doubt you can get this rejection overturned. Maybe there was a complaint or maybe someone on the site realized it was not appropriate. I support the decision - there is no reason to have offensive content here as it just hurts all of the writers. Good luck with selling it elsewhere.

If there was a complaint I should like to see it, what I offered is the same level of kritikal thinking that anyone taking a basic class in German philosophy would be in contact with, if philosophy offends people because it is different than conventional thought then why does my article deserve to be rejected. Additionally this type of writing is not about to hurt the writers using constant content. Ask yourself what would make a site seem more like a place worth paying $30+ per article 1) The homepage is covered with articles such as "How to make money blogging", "5 reasons why you sneeze", "Keep your kids of the internet, there are stalkers" or 2) The homepage consists of articles such as "Nietzschean Philosophy as It Applies to American Security Policy", "A Call for Modern Day Maxism", "Foucault, Bio-power and Charities", "Does Bauldrillard exist? Delving into Hyper-Reality"?

While the first set of articles may seem more appealing to readers, by having those mixed in with the second set these "smart" sounding articles add credibility to the "5 reasons why you sneeze" articles. Thus I think that articles that accurately offer a higher level of communication are much more helpful to the Constant-Content writers.

However, if this article cannot be resubmitted, I will attempt to water-down future submissions of mine, however at the very least could this not count as one of the "3-Strike" standard that writers are held to. The article was grammatically correct and textually useful.

[Ed]

The decision concerning this article is final. This is not the type of content we are looking for.

Thank you,
Ed

[RuvapSemaj]

The decision concerning this article is final. This is not the type of content we are looking for.

Thank you,
Ed

Thank you and I respect the decision. I personally will be moving to a site that doesn't censor material on account of its non-offensive well researched content, thank you for taking the time to review my article and I hope constant-content continues to have "appropriate" articles submitted in the stead of pertinent accurate intellectual content. However, might I recommend that you add a "No German Philosophy"/"No Alternative Rhetoric" clause to your terms of service so that other authors do not spend time writing articles in vain?

Thanks,
RuvapSemaj

[RuvapSemaj]

Also
If anyone reading this is curious as to what constant-content considers to be "offensive philosophy" the article can be found in full (with a revised disclaimer) here. (I got a PM or two from curious people so I figured linking to it may save trouble). While I am not promoting a competitor's site in any way I would like to say that Triond accepted it without any hesitation...

[Constant]

Hi there-
First off let me say this: Constant Content sells a particular product. Much like a commercial shoe store, though they admire the craftmanship of six inch stiletto heels, sitting on four inch platforms with small Cyclades circling inset fish tanks, they will probably decline to sell them. We are not an intellectual forum. We are not a place for risky political intellectual exercises. Why? Because as a commercial content vendor, we are responsible to a large and diverse array of purchasing needs, and user groups.

We live in a society that has multiple platforms for such expression, and thus we must exercise, however distasteful sometimes, discretion toward the content we are able to accept. When perfectly interesting articles that walk a fine line in terms of the intellectual capacity and sophistication of analysis needed to discern the multiple layers of meaning and contextual/relative references, we just can't risk the economic damage to our community that could result from misinterpretation. This is especially true when that damage would result from a line of inquiry outside our expertise level to adjudicate its veracity or quality of argument. We are not trying to push the edge, and so though we don't find your philosophy offensive, we can't publish it. We don't publish naked pictures, or writings from libertarians or secessionist southerners, or Marxist guerrillas advocating violent resistance, even if its just a hypothetical rhetorical exercise.

As a philosopher I hope you recognize the distinction between a commercial space and an intellectual space designed for such pull and tug of ideas. But for now, perhaps you can pull and tug elsewhere, at home or in another type of site.

Thanks for you participation.

David Kool

[nichewriter]

While I am not promoting a competitor's site in any way I would like to say that Triond accepted it without any hesitation...

Triond is completely different from CC, and as Triond says, "We accept all original content on any topic, including written articles, pictures, audio, and video." Unlike CC, Triond does not sell articles to end-users, but rather places them on the relevant sites within the Triond network for them to earn revenue based on display and contextual advertising. The two have different models of accepting and publishing content. Apples and oranges. Glad, however, that you found a place to publish your article.

[RuvapSemaj]

Hi there-
First off let me say this: Constant Content sells a particular product. Much like a commercial shoe store, though they admire the craftmanship of six inch stiletto heels, sitting on four inch platforms with small Cyclades circling inset fish tanks, they will probably decline to sell them. We are not an intellectual forum. We are not a place for risky political intellectual exercises. Why? Because as a commercial content vendor, we are responsible to a large and diverse array of purchasing needs, and user groups.

We live in a society that has multiple platforms for such expression, and thus we must exercise, however distasteful sometimes, discretion toward the content we are able to accept. When perfectly interesting articles that walk a fine line in terms of the intellectual capacity and sophistication of analysis needed to discern the multiple layers of meaning and contextual/relative references, we just can't risk the economic damage to our community that could result from misinterpretation. This is especially true when that damage would result from a line of inquiry outside our expertise level to adjudicate its veracity or quality of argument. We are not trying to push the edge, and so though we don't find your philosophy offensive, we can't publish it. We don't publish naked pictures, or writings from libertarians or secessionist southerners, or Marxist guerrillas advocating violent resistance, even if its just a hypothetical rhetorical exercise.

As a philosopher I hope you recognize the distinction between a commercial space and an intellectual space designed for such pull and tug of ideas. But for now, perhaps you can pull and tug elsewhere, at home or in another type of site.

Thanks for you participation.

David Kool

Thanks David, perhaps when I am feeling less like a crazy philosopher and more like a news writer I will submit some more articles to constant content, I appreciate you taking the time to review my article and I admit that I did need to be reminded that Constant-Content's goal is to sell articles, not to generate ideas. I look forward to writing some more soon. Although perhaps my "A Call for Modern Marxism" needs to just sit in my "drafts" folder a while longer

--RuvapSemaj