everyting i post has to be approved by the mods too. that's just the price of participation, which is, despite your complaint, open (or self-selecting if you prefer). as dot said, people with low scores go through that. if you want to play the game, you can't demand that the rules be changed as a condition of your participation.
i understand the dynamics of up and down votes. my question only had to do with what i sensed as a refusal to accept that the question (not the explanation) was valid. "i do understand it's not a lie if you believe it" is aggressive because you're presuming to have a better understanding of the motives, intentions, and perspectives of an imagined group of participants. when i read this statement, i have to conclude that the reasoning behind your question has to do with a perception of a narrower focus of participants than actually exists (as ba@ outlined in one of his responses). when you call someone or a group of someones liars, that's aggressive, straight up. i use "aggressive" to mean an attitude that is (gratuitously) hostile and/or provocative. here's an example of how the same question could be posed unaggressively:
"i have noticed that the dominant trend among participants on this site tends toward what i understand as post-left anarchy. is that how most people here identify? and if that's the case, wouldn't it be more accurate to call this website 'post-left 101'?" those are actual questions, where the presumed responses are not embedded in the formulation of the question, where the question isn't merely a statement with a question mark at the end.
(edited for a missing letter)