Posts by Kyle Nelson2

Honestly, this whole situation isn't actually all bad, and here's why:
- It gives younger supporters of communism a real look at how it actually plays out in practice.
- It proves that the freedom of speech and free enterprise we've had since the American War of Independence is being exploited by the very people who used to be against them.

The moderator (Zack) would probably be absolutely livid if someone from the right wing were in charge; he'd likely ban any version of history that doesn't fit his narrative, or even silence anyone speaking from that perspective.

Look, moderation is literally just punishing people for breaking the forum rules... that's it. Everything else falls under free speech..

Once a moderator decides something is against the rules, well, that's basically where the whole debate hits a dead end.
I won't get bogged down in all the tiny details, but just look at the logic—like whether you call Stalin "Stalin," "Dzhugashvili," or "Joseph Stalin." It doesn't really matter because everyone knows exactly who we're talking about..
But for some reason, the moderator insists on policing this stuff to prevent any supposed “confusion.”
For what, honestly? What's the point?

The lack of any actual, high-quality discussion actually just feeds the other side's argument, mostly because they aren't even given the chance to have their points challenged with real facts.

It’s pretty obvious the goal of the moderation here isn't actually to facilitate a debate based on any set of rules. It feels more like they're just steering the conversation toward a pre-packaged conclusion by deleting or flagging any views they don't like..

I guess they probably want to influence public opinion (?) to ensure history is viewed through one specific lens—the same way it was portrayed back in the old regime. Apparently, looking at history from a different angle is automatically branded as revisionism..
So, this isn't moderation; it's political maneuvering with a very clear agenda..

That's just my take, anyway. It seems like the old system is being defended by people who are clearly nostalgic for it (whether it was the old federation, communism, socialism, whatever...), so I doubt you'll see any change in how things are handled here..
I'm not exactly a historian, but honestly, American historians don't seem much different from this, at least based on some of the interviews I've read.

Will they succeed in controlling the narrative? Probably not. Besides, this forum isn't the only place on the internet to speak your mind.. just start a Facebook group or a subreddit, or something else..

>: And lonetrucker4 isn't the only one acting like this. We saw the same thing with KLCCLK regarding those threads about COVID (where he insisted it was just a slightly heavy flu and kept flagging anyone with a different view), and even with the topics on immigrants...

lonetrucker4 said:That’s the easiest example of you trying to play semantics with people's names. You wouldn't even get a yellow card for just that. I already pointed out that every decent book calls him Stalin. Sure, it’s not technically wrong, but it just confuses the reader.

But then you went and wrote that Koča Popović is "more accurately Kosta Pop." 😵 And out of nowhere, you changed Ivo Frol to Ivan. All in one single post.

Your post:

My post where I point out all the sloppy mistakes, the vagueness, and the pure guesswork:

And this isn't the first time you've written something this half-baked and "creative." You've complained about it a million times too.

Can I just point out that ZO uses the term "Inter-net" instead of the standard word?
Why the hell does he do that?!

I switch between both terms. Using the translated version is totally normal usage.

In the same thread, people actually had to explain the difference between a DC-3 and a DC-10 to you. That's an easy mistake to make once, but you're making piles of them constantly—it doesn't match those massive ambitions of yours.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin

...

Stalin's birth name was Ioseb Besarionis dzе Jughashvili
....

This is on the same level as saying it's a mistake to call Tito "Josip Broz."

Jack Cook7 said:Just putting this on the record.

I don't agree with the moderator lonetrucker4's takes regarding the Homeland War in Canada or how he projects events leading up to today.

That said, I do agree that he does an incredibly good job moderating such a heated topic and tries his best to stay objective and stick to the facts.

I always figured the whole point of this forum was the debate itself, rather than just obsessing over hard facts.
🤔

Anyway, historical facts usually decide who actually won, right?

hiddenmoose16 said:Let’s say someone threatens this wannabe moderator on this site—you know, maybe tells him they'll knock his teeth out or some other half-baked threat, God forbid—could that guy actually take it to the authorities and ask for protection? And if he did, who would actually be held accountable and face the consequences?

The internet handle or the actual person hiding behind that handle...

Asking for a friend. 😁

According to how these rule-interpreters see things, the platform itself is responsible.
I mean, if Plenković happened to feel insulted by some random post on a site like Reddit, the legal and financial responsibility would fall on—Reddit.

@lonebadger6
Obviously, you can't just dump comments on PBS where they don't belong, any more than you could go spray-painting a wall.
But, guess what—this platform is meant for discussion...

Alright, we get it... you aren't exactly a lawyer, just some guy on Reddit trying to play theologian with the Kuran.

☕ 🙂

boldbadger1 said:And until then, Reddit is just an online hangout for anonymous users with zero legal standing

Only the legislature can decide that, or whoever actually has the authority to interpret the law...

Anyway, hiding behind legality is just stupid. It’s basically the last line of defense for any relationship that should really be built on mutual respect and not messing with people's integrity in the first place...

My main point—which I wasn't even directly referencing, just throwing out as a side argument—is that a moderator is a moderator, not some censor or editor. (Not to mention those shady posts and whatever else). I guess we should at least have some level of honesty here...

There's no reason to lie about who's on the right or the left... it seems to me that us Republicans don't really have a problem being upfront, whereas the liberals are always hiding behind... ... ... (quasi-)legal clauses.
That's just my general thought, nothing specifically tied to that post about the historical sites.

boldbadger1 said:Look, have you even linked your actual identity to this account? All you need to provide is some random email address.

Maybe just head down to the local clinic, sign up using nothing but an email, and then we can see how much those constitutional rights actually matter to them. ☕

Honestly, if Reddit turned into a government service desk for picking up official documents, I wouldn't care.

But unfortunately, we "conservatives" aren't really about handing out equal rights to everyone regardless of their paperwork status (though I guess the liberals love that 😁)... we believe people should be treated equally... whether it's Peter Dudley or Zachary Kalinic.

boldbadger1 said:Can you actually file a defamation lawsuit or sue someone for insults using nothing but a forum handle?

If you honestly think you can stay totally anonymous and still claim all those constitutional and legal protections—well, just try walking into any public institution that guarantees rights to Americans (like a hospital, the police, a courthouse, whatever) and demand they uphold your rights based on some random username and an email address.

Then you can try explaining to them that their refusal to honor your constitutional rights doesn't matter because you don't have a real identity.

Look, if you want to exercise rights defined by law, you have to identify yourself. That has nothing to do with your nickname.

boldbadger1 said:Anonymity doesn't actually grant you any constitutional rights, because you're basically trading them away just to keep your identity hidden (for whatever reason). But even so, it doesn't excuse you from following the law. I mean, the whole point of the Constitution and our legal system is to set boundaries for society and protect individuals and groups from people who step outside those lines.

If that wasn't the case, nobody would ever be held accountable for breaking laws anonymously online—like committing fraud or forging documents, for instance. Sure, hate speech and insults are at the bottom of the priority list when it comes to protecting society, but they’re still defined by law. Otherwise, anyone could just choose to stay anonymous whenever they felt like breaking the law and hurting some other citizen.

Look, I could go on about how people here try to censor anyone with a different opinion, and I mostly agree with what you said, but at the end of the day... this forum is private property, and being here is my choice...

There isn't anything in the T&Cs, or in any law or regulation, that says choosing anonymity means you're waiving your constitutional rights. You can't just sign those rights away under US law, or any other law for that matter. Even if you signed a document saying you did and had it notarized, it wouldn't hold any water legally. It's null and void.

The law applies to everyone equally, whether you're Dr. Stephen Smith or Peter Dudley, as long as you're an American citizen.

boldbadger1 said:Look, first things first: if you’re posting under an anonymous handle, you can't exactly claim the protections guaranteed by the US Constitution. That document is written for citizens, right? And we all know how that works—you aren't officially recognized as a citizen unless you have a name, a surname, and a Social Security number. That's where everything starts. From there, you get all those constitutional rights, sure, but you also take on all the legal responsibilities that come with them. You can't really have it both ways, I guess.

Look, at some point, you just have to take some responsibility. You can't go around violating the Constitution and breaking the law like it’s nothing. Those things are literally the foundation of our entire society. I don't care if you're hiding behind an anonymous handle—you shouldn't be allowed to disregard the law just because nobody knows your real name.

Until they actually regulate our digital existence, I guess you don't really have any ground to stand on when asking Reddit to respect your civil rights. They just don't exist as such yet.

Look, I feel like I have to say this. Compared to the rest of the mainstream American media—you know, with all those toxic comment sections and how they just let hate speech and pure intolerance run wild—Reddit actually sets a pretty high bar when it comes to moderation. They actually care about keeping the quality of the discussion somewhat decent and managing our anonymous posts. Sure, they have every right to have their own political or social leanings within that framework. At the end of the day, it’s your call whether you want to jump into these debates or not. It’s your choice to participate, knowing you might risk getting flagged or banned if your take doesn't align with what the moderators think.

Just because someone's hiding behind anonymity doesn't mean they get to dodge their rights or responsibilities under the law. I guess you can't just opt out of being held accountable for what you do.
I mean, if they end up stripping us of our rights, that could hypothetically become the excuse someone uses to claim they can break the law—like by violating them—without actually being held accountable for it. Which, obviously, isn't how it works. But still.

When it comes to censorship, I mean, if you look at it as a tool to force an opinion on people, it actually works. It’s pretty obvious. If they hadn't used it, I guess we might still be stuck living under communism in Yugoslavia, or the Russians and Ukrainians would still be trapped in the USSR, along with most other countries for that matter.

Roger Fowler said:Christian Indians are actually great to work with, whereas Hindus? Well, by our standards, they can be a nightmare, though perhaps they don't see it that way since not everyone views the caste system through the same lens.

By their own standards, they’re probably fine, I suppose. Because, you know, it's totally okay for them to tell you they understand everything and will get it done, only to go right back to Googling it all later.

A forty-day lockdown for basically everything, and then just going right back to business as usual.
Everything else is just playing games with people's nerves and the economy, I guess.

I didn't get back to you sooner because I wasn't actually following that thread, otherwise I would've dropped a link to the video...
Just because it's video footage doesn't mean it isn't relevant.

I've read Capital, and since I'm an economist, I've got my own take on it.
Plus, we're talking about a historian who did the analysis here.

Anyway, since when does making "irrelevant comments" get you a warning card?

Marxism, that ideology the European Union keeps bringing up in their declarations condemning totalitarian regimes... I actually mentioned it in my previous post here:

And now it seems like the new policy is that instead of giving out a warning for 'trolling,' they just hit you with a one-day ban?
Maybe I should suggest a new warning category: 'disagreement with the central ideology.'
Because, honestly, I don't see anything wrong with what I wrote...

nimblemarlin6 said:The right wing seems absolutely obsessed with this constant sense of being under siege—it’s always some phantom threat lurking in the shadows, like the Americans, the FBI, communists, Mexicans, or these sweeping European conspiracies involving George Soros and the globalists. For them, "patriotism" isn't really a broad concept; it’s strictly tied to their specific worldview—which basically boils down to hardcore chauvinism, rigid conservatism, and Catholicism.

For these folks, using threats and intimidation as a tool for public discourse has become second nature over the years.

There are plenty of examples if you look—take those protesters who were openly setting up gas canisters and blocking major highways in a city like Chicago; they acted like they were untouchable, mostly because there was this constant, looming suggestion that they had enough weapons to arm an army, just waiting for some "American-communist traitor" Prime Minister to try and enforce the law.

And then, does anyone remember when that mob led by Bujanac marched toward the FCC building with the explicit goal of ousting Jane Doe from her position?

Honestly, the right wing has made at least two blatant attempts to establish something resembling a paramilitary group.

You have Veselinka Glavaš starting up those "Sokolovi" groups—just rows of young guys dressed in black—and then there was Skejo, who organized a bunch of similarly dressed men in Times Square to take an oath of allegiance to Donald Trump.
And so on, and so forth.

Now, looking at the left side of the aisle—can anyone actually name a single incident involving weapons, militarism, threats, or organized groups playing soldier? I can't think of one.

It’s always the same pattern: a leftist columnist writes an op-ed, or a liberal journalist produces a segment without any swearing or threats, or some "communist" director makes a decent movie, and suddenly there’s this massive avalanche of comments about the FBI and the Americans supposedly oppressing the people.

Meanwhile, these right-wingers are constantly feeding into this self-perpetuating war-time psychosis...

most of those right-wingers you're talking about are just Republican Party members.

Rachel Richardson said:That’s about the gist of it.
And this whole pandemic business—it seems almost too convenient for him.
I still haven't quite wrapped my head around how the man managed to cling to power.

Low turnout.
I mean, every single election seems to have lower turnout than the last one. It’s always the same people showing up—retirees, people with special interests, that kind of thing.

On the flip side, I wouldn't say the Republican Party won this; it's more like the other parties just fell apart.
The Democratic Party basically vanished from the map, especially on Bloomberg. There was a massive void left behind, and since the main wing of the Democratic Party was essentially paralyzed, nobody could step up.

Since everyone was bracing for another wave of COVID, people started wondering, "Could Bernardic actually handle a crisis like this?" And honestly, in my opinion, the answer was no—people felt like Andrej Plenković and Beros would handle it way better.
So, like they do in every crisis, people voted conservatively, though even then, the Republican majority is looking pretty thin if you ask me.

Now that the Democratic Party and certain fringe groups are breathing down the Republican Party's neck, the plan is to just label them as extreme right-wingers and shut them down.
Will it actually work?
Maybe. I guess so, because Skoro isn't exactly a seasoned politician... he'll probably just walk straight into whatever trap they set for him.

cosmicotter13 said:Or, if you want the blunt truth—the Republican Party isn't actually even a patriotic center-right group. They're just left-liberal, pro-EU types who act like they're something else just to win votes during election season.

Yeah... I mean, Trump is so far to the left that Joe Biden has basically become his right-wing opposition.

You’re overthinking this way too much, probably because you're just not sure how to actually pull off the job or the offer you were handed.
Honestly, if you want an answer, there's really only one way to go about it: just dive in and stop second-guessing everything.