Posts by Jose Edwards16

Sam Martinez9 said:I’m not quite sure why you’re directing this at me, considering I already mentioned that I don't have much interest in the transgender community.

What I am interested in is why *average* people are making such a massive fuss over a group that accounts for a tiny fraction of one percent of the population. Since you clearly find the subject so fascinating, perhaps you could provide an answer to that question.

Well, I guess you could say I have a bit of a thing for a good debate. Or maybe I just enjoy the chaos—it’s hard to tell sometimes. Either way, I'm all for it.
We’re just out here talking about all sorts of random stuff—nothing too crazy, I guess. Just a mix of things.

What if gender just... isn't actually a thing? Like, maybe we could all just agree that the whole male/female binary is kind of a myth—that there isn't really an M or an F, but instead we're all just, I don't know, fluid? Or maybe "omnisexual"? Just a thought, I guess.

ruggedraven36 said:Sure, I know the terms—but honestly, I don't see where this is going. If we're calling tomboys or effeminate guys "extreme cases," then logically, I should be seeing traces of femininity in most men and traces of masculinity in most women. But that assumes there’s some universal checklist to separate "male" traits from "female" ones. In reality, most human qualities are just... human. They apply to everyone. When I'm comparing guys to guys, or women to women, I never think about how much "masculinity" or "femininity" they're displaying. It doesn't occur to me to call a laid-back guy "feminized" or a tough-as-nails woman "masculine." Usually, "masculine" traits are just whatever women happen to find attractive, and vice versa for men. But here's the catch: most women actually want a mix of typical and atypical traits in a man, and it works the same way for men looking at women. So, if everything is a blend, how are we even supposed to tell sex apart from gender?

Then there's the whole androgyny thing—not that I'm saying it's everything, but it’s definitely a factor in the mix.

Androgyny—it’s one of those topics that people love to get worked up about, I guess. It’s sort of this fluid middle ground that doesn't really fit into the neat little boxes society tries to build for us—though, let's be honest, those boxes are getting a bit more crowded lately. It's just about blurring those lines between masculine and feminine, which some people find revolutionary and others... well, others find confusing. Maybe it's just a matter of perspective, but it feels like we're all just trying to figure out where we land on the spectrum without making a scene. Or maybe we are making a scene. Hard to say.
Androgyny—which comes from that Greek term *androgynos*, if you want to get technical—is basically just that blend where someone displays both masculine and feminine traits. It’s about those qualities that society usually doesn't expect from a specific gender, or the stuff we traditionally pin on the opposite sex. I guess it's just breaking those rigid little boxes we build for ourselves. Some modern psychologists actually argue that being androgynous is a pretty positive thing—maybe even a strength—because it makes us more capable of handling life in its entirety by smashing those tired old stereotypes about how men or women "should" act. Or maybe it just makes things less predictable. Who knows.

I don't really know what you want me to do with this—there isn't actually a link here, I guess. Maybe it didn't paste right, or maybe it was just a typo? Either way, if there was supposed to be a link, it's missing. Just a thought.

So, I guess you could say if a woman has really short hair and is, say, super into sports—that kind of vibe—she might be perceived as androgynous. It’s just one of those things, maybe—it depends on how people see it, I suppose.
Usually, women go for longer hair—it's just the standard thing—but if you look back at some of those older threads, long hair on guys was always this big statement of rebellion. I guess nowadays, it’s just become the default look for heavy metal fans. It's kind of funny how things shift like that—one day it's an act of defiance, and the next, it's just what you expect to see at a concert. Maybe everything just becomes a trope eventually.

mart28 said:I don't really care about them either, but...
I guess if you look at how things work in the US Congress—you know, where they have those discussions about gender quotas and representation—it’s never exactly a smooth ride. I mean, having two women in leadership roles specifically to meet certain parity goals? It's probably going to ruffle some feathers. People always seem to have an opinion on it, and let's be honest, it's rarely a unanimous thumbs-up from everyone in the room. It's just one of those things that tends to stir up debate, I suppose.
Or, you know, maybe trans women just call themselves feminists and decide to jump into that scene—I guess.
Can a trans woman have the same physical experiences—or just general life experiences, I guess—as a cisgender woman, and can she truly be considered a "voice" for women in general?

I guess there’s always going to be that ongoing debate about whether trans women should be allowed to compete in women's sports categories—it's one of those topics that just keeps circling back around, isn't it? It feels like every time you turn around, people are arguing over the fairness of it all, though I suppose it's more complicated than just a simple yes or no. There are so many different angles to consider, and honestly, it seems like everyone has an opinion on it lately.
The whole issue boils down to the fact that someone born male who then transitions into a woman might end up with more developed muscle mass or different physical traits—basically, things like lung capacity or endurance—which could give them an edge over biological women in athletic competitions.

The Leader on American television, Pierce Morgan, also holds views that tend to rub the LGBTQ community the wrong way—he once joked, for instance, that if there really are that many different gender identities out there, he might just call himself a 'two-spirited penguin.'
Yt

And, predictably, Morgan ends up getting accused of being transphobic. There were even calls—petitions, actually—to get him fired, and all because of his comment about not agreeing with the idea that there are 'hundreds of genders.'
I prefer to debate and argue with people I disagree with rather than demanding they lose their jobs, Morgan points out.
He also mentioned in this video that the Grammy Awards have moved away from male/female categories toward being gender-neutral, and he argues that this move actually does more harm than good for women.☕

Sam Martinez9 said:I’m not quite sure why you’re directing this at me, considering I already mentioned that I don't have much interest in the transgender community.

What I am interested in is why *average* people are making such a massive fuss over a group that accounts for a tiny fraction of one percent of the population. Since you clearly find the subject so fascinating, perhaps you could provide an answer to that question.

I mean, I enjoy a good debate.

We're just talking about different things and looking at the same stuff through different lenses, I suppose.

I could probably bring up something from the Myth of Sisyphus, since that's basically the core philosophical issue here.
But besides that main point, there's plenty of other stuff to argue about.

ruggedraven36 said:Sure, I know the terms—but honestly, I don't see where this is going. If we're calling tomboys or effeminate guys "extreme cases," then logically, I should be seeing traces of femininity in most men and traces of masculinity in most women. But that assumes there’s some universal checklist to separate "male" traits from "female" ones. In reality, most human qualities are just... human. They apply to everyone. When I'm comparing guys to guys, or women to women, I never think about how much "masculinity" or "femininity" they're displaying. It doesn't occur to me to call a laid-back guy "feminized" or a tough-as-nails woman "masculine." Usually, "masculine" traits are just whatever women happen to find attractive, and vice versa for men. But here's the catch: most women actually want a mix of typical and atypical traits in a man, and it works the same way for men looking at women. So, if everything is a blend, how are we even supposed to tell sex apart from gender?

Then there's androgyny.

Quincy:

androginost Androgyny (from the Greek *androgynos*) refers to a woman or man displaying both feminine and masculine characteristics—basically those traits that society doesn't typically expect from someone of a certain sex, or things usually attributed to the opposite sex. Some modern psychologists actually view androgyny as a positive thing; it might make us more capable of navigating life in general because it breaks down those rigid social stereotypes about what men or women "should" be like. Link

Take, for instance, a woman with very short hair who's really into sports; she might be perceived as androgynous.
Usually, women wear their hair long, whereas—as we've touched on before—long hair on men used to be a sign of rebellion. Nowadays, I guess most heavy metal fans have long hair.

Sam Martinez9 said:However, if you want to know what the LGBTQ community is pushing, you actually have to take an interest in it. Personally, I haven't the slightest clue what their specific talking points are; at most, I might glance at a headline about a parade in New York City and leave it at that.

In the same vein, I don't follow fashion. I have no idea what’s considered "in" right now, nor do I intend to spend my time scrolling through websites or flipping through magazines to see what the trends are for this season.

If we follow that logic, we could spend all day arguing whether chess is technically a sport or not, since most people define "sport" by physical exertion—you know, things like running.
And if chess counts as a sport, then why isn't dominoes or even Sorry! considered a sport? They're just games, right?

This whole idea—isn't it just a circular argument? It seems like a logical fallacy being peddled by that YouTuber Jamie:
Transwomen are not men who become women - they are women who happened to be trans.

Basically:
Trans women are just women who are trans.

I actually have this little booklet in my library that lists different logical fallacies, and I'm pretty sure that sentence fits the bill perfectly.

Plus, the part about how someone "becomes" trans is still a bit fuzzy, which was sort of my point in my previous post, I guess.☕

Honestly, I think Walsh, who critiques various LGBTQ viewpoints, actually puts together much tighter and more coherent arguments than the ones he's taking aim at.

Sam Martinez9 said:I find myself wondering why such a tiny percentage of the population—whether it's a few percent or just a fraction of a percent, I haven't bothered to check because frankly, I don't care—attracts so much intense focus from people who are perfectly comfortable with their own gender.

Let me offer another comparison—think about people who, due to some accident, lose both legs and have to rely on wheelchairs. How often do those of us with functioning legs actually dwell on them or obsess over their struggles? Sure, the legislature can pass laws to make mobility easier or help them live more independently, but most of us rarely give it a second thought.

Personally, I find this entire topic rather uninteresting. What I've just noted applies to *average* people who seem strangely preoccupied with transgender individuals.

Beyond that, I don't believe meaningful debates regarding gender should be built upon edge cases.

A few things.

Personally, I don't really have an issue with people expressing their gender however they want—whether they identify as hetero, trans, asexual, or whatever else—or if they just... well, you know. It’s fine by me.
I don't know—maybe she just has this weird, unexplained thing for trees.
I mean, honestly—it’s their call to make. Their choice, really.

I guess it’s a bit of a headache when the LGBTQ community—or at least certain segments of it—starts aggressively pushing specific agendas and blurring all the definitions around. It kind of muddies the waters, if you know what I mean.
It’s kind of like that YouTuber Jamie says—you know, that line where they claim trans women are just women who happen to be trans. It’s a bit of a circular way to put it, I guess.
So, if someone claims that things are laid out strictly as X-Y-Z—and they’re acting like there isn't any other way the world works—I guess it's worth poking at that. It might be worth checking if that logic actually holds up, or if maybe, just maybe, the whole setup looks more like A-B-C.

So, how exactly does it "happen" for someone to become trans? I mean, if you look at it from a certain angle—and I’m just speculating here, obviously—nobody is actually born "trans." People are born either male or female, right? Or so it seems, anyway.
I mean, I guess you could say being trans becomes this sort of defined process—you know, through things like hormone therapy or surgery—but it’s probably more layered than that. It's just one way to look at it, I suppose.

So, I guess the way you look at it—if you want to get technical about it—is that a trans person is someone who feels a clear, definite drive to transition. It’s about that internal intent to change their sex, whether they've already gone through the whole process—you know, the medical stuff like hormone therapy, physical changes, or surgeries—or if they're still in the middle of it. It's really just about aligning their body and how they present themselves with who they actually are inside, their gender identity and that overall sense of self. Or maybe that's just one way to frame it, anyway.

Gender transition is this long, often pretty uncomfortable slog—it’s not exactly a quick fix. To even get started with hormone therapy or any kind of genital surgery, a trans person basically has to be officially diagnosed with "gender identity disorder" first. Then, the psychiatric establishment usually steps in and insists they spend at least a year living as the "opposite sex"—you know, the whole routine of wearing specific clothes and adjusting their gender expression just to prove they're "ready" for surgery. It can be an incredibly awkward process for the individual involved. Honestly, many in the trans community see these requirements as pretty discriminatory, maybe even borderline violent, because the idea that someone should have the authority to dictate how another person expresses their gender feels wrong. I guess the biggest gripe people have with psychiatry here is that it forces these old-school, stereotypical gender binaries back onto people (check out that first image for context). So, you might have a trans woman who's trying to navigate this transition, but to get the green light from her doctor, she's suddenly expected to wear skirts, heels, dye her hair, or put on makeup—even if that doesn't actually fit her vibe or how she wants to present herself as a woman. It's a lot to ask, really.

You’ll also run into these abbreviations like M2F—which basically refers to someone assigned male at birth who identifies as female—and F2M, where someone assigned female at birth is transitioning to male. Though, I guess if you actually talk to people in the community, they don't usually go around labeling themselves with those technical terms. Most just identify as a man or a woman... sort of treating the whole transition thing as just one chapter in their lives rather than a permanent label. Maybe that's just how it works.

So, I was thinking about how gender-affirming medical stuff works—it’s a bit more complicated than most people realize, I guess. Like, many trans people actually skip out on genital surgery because, well, it can mess with sexual pleasure, which is a pretty big deal. Then there's the hormone thing—you're basically on them for life since the body doesn't just spontaneously start producing the "other" sex's hormones on its own. They help develop secondary characteristics, but you can't exactly hit an undo button once they show up. So, trans men might need surgery to remove breasts, while trans women mostly have to deal with voice training—which, let's be honest, is a whole different kind of struggle. Since most folks start transitioning well after puberty—once those physical traits are already set in stone—some things just stay, regardless of what the hormones are doing. We're talking height, broad shoulders, long feet, or a prominent Adam's apple for trans women; or narrow shoulders, wider hips, and shorter feet for trans men. It’s just biology, I suppose. The hormones do change things, though. Trans men usually see more body hair, changes in voice pitch, and sometimes the clitoris grows to a point where it's practically a small penis. For trans women, it’s more about the hips, breasts, and less body hair. And there's this huge misconception about surgery—like, when a trans woman has genital surgery, it isn't some "removal" or castration thing, which is a common myth. It’s more like the tissue is reshaped and tucked, almost like a sock being pulled inside out. On the flip side, hormone therapy can cause a trans man's penis to grow slightly, maybe just a couple of centimeters above that standard medical baseline. Medical tech is always moving forward, and there are definitely alternative solutions popping up, but nothing really stands out as a gold standard yet. It's all very much a work in progress, I guess.

Wiki

So...
Quincy:

A transgender person is someone who identifies as trans and has a clear desire and intention to change their sex...

Quincy:

Hormones are taken permanently because the body can't just produce enough of the hormones characteristic of the "opposite sex" on its own. They work by helping one acquire secondary sex characteristics, though they can't really undo them once they're there. Link

Also, regarding the etymology of the prefix:

Quincy:

trans- is a word-forming element meaning "across, beyond, through, on the other side of, to go beyond," coming from the Latin trans (prep.) "across, over, beyond," which was probably originally a present participle of a verb *trare-, meaning "to cross"... Link

Trans—to cross over (to change).

Matt Walsh is the creator of the documentary What is a Woman?
The film hits screens on June 1st.

If you’re wondering—and it is a bit of a weird question, I guess—what "woman" actually means and why some guy would make a whole movie about it, the answer is pretty straightforward.
Basically, while participating in debates with transgender individuals regarding how they define "woman," Matt Walsh kept getting told that the term can't actually be defined—or rather, that they don't know what a woman is. So, Walsh eventually asked: if people identifying as trans women can't define the term "woman," how do they even know they are trans women? I mean, the phrase "trans woman" is just two words joined together to create a new concept.
To get from "woman" to "trans woman," you really have to understand what both "woman" and "trans" signify first.

Here is the trailer for the Walsh film. A lot of folks in the LGBTQ community have already labeled the doc "transphobic" just based on the trailer alone, even though
the footage shows Walsh interviewing people with all sorts of viewpoints (including members of the LGBTQ community) and getting various responses—like one person saying the term "woman" could mean anything, or that there are women with penises and men with vaginas. There was also one guy who, when asked "How do you know you're a man?", just answered bluntly: "I know because I have a penis."

YouTube Trailer What Is A Woman

IMDB

It's the question you're not allowed to ask. The documentary they don't want you to see.

One woman told him that "only a woman can answer the question of what a woman is." Walsh then asked her: "So, are you perhaps a cat?" She said, "No."
Then Walsh asked: "Well, can you define what a cat is, then?"

Meanwhile, over on Twitter, members of the LGBTQ community are tagging the trailer as "transphobic" and trying to get it taken down—though it hasn't worked so far.

I find it interesting that Walsh gets branded a "transphobe" just for questioning the very premise of the film's title.
Also, if members of the LGBTQ community don't know (or maybe just won't) give an answer to the question of what a woman is, are we all supposed to just accept that view and say starting in 2022:
"The term woman is undefinable; we don't know what it signifies."

Just to be fair and listen to the other side, there have been plenty of critiques and attacks on the Walsh film, so here is one:

Transphobic Ad Asks "What is A Woman?"
YouTube

Right in the first minute, this YouTuber (Jamie) expresses shock at Walsh joining a march and asking the protesters: "What is a woman?"
By the second minute, when the trailer shows someone answering "Because I have a penis" to the question "How do you know you're a man?", Jamie doesn't even comment.
I guess he just didn't like that straightforward answer.

Jamie then goes on to say: "Trans women aren't men who became women; they are women who became trans."
Just a quick thought: how did these trans women become "trans"? We end up right back at the same spot where you need to define "trans" and "woman."

Jamie continues by calling Walsh's questions "bullshit" and repeats that the documentary is transphobic. ☕

Matt Walsh responded to him in his own video:
trans YouTuber Responds to What is a Woman
YouTube MW

Addressing Jamie's question about why "that dude" is asking women at a protest "what a woman is,"...
Walsh asks Jamie how he (Jamie) knows he (Walsh) is—well, a guy. He's like, "I didn't actually say I was a man anywhere in the documentary."
And honestly, that’s the first major contradiction from the LGBTQ crowd—I mean, first they claim "woman" is an undefinable concept, but then they spot Matt Walsh on screen and start lecturing him for being a man leading a march of women. So, the LGBTQ community immediately identifies Walsh as a man—and they clearly recognize he's among the women on the march.
Wait, how does that work—if we aren't allowed to define certain terms?

It seems pretty obvious to me that the term "woman" is easy enough to define, just like "man" or "trans woman." I mean, when we see someone, we don't usually struggle to tell if they're a man or a woman. It feels like the LGBTQ population just blurs the definitions to push a specific agenda.

And Walsh hit them with a point at the end too: "Jamie, in your ten minutes of commentary on my trailer, you didn't even answer the question I asked: What is a woman, how do we actually define that term?"
That's the second big contradiction right there.

Finally, Walsh explains his actual goal with the film: What is a Woman.
Explanation

He says, somewhat ironically, that the documentary will actually be incredibly useful and eye-opening for the LGBTQ+ community, since they insist they can't define what a "woman" is.
Another contradiction!

There's more to it, I guess, but this is just a starting point for the discussion.☕

Mark Cruz15 said:How come this one and a few other pics from earlier in the thread show them just doing normal shit?

Sometimes I'll just post a photo I like, even if it doesn't strictly fit the topic.
From what I could find with a quick Google search, I couldn't really find any shots of, say, Jim Morrison washing dishes or mowing the lawn—it’s pretty much all just photos of him at some dive bar with a cigarette in his hand. ☕

Agnetha Fältskog (ABBA)

Brian Epstein

^
She took my hand but i forgive Her She Brok my Heart basically consists of just looping the chorus over and over—specifically I Forgive Her. It spends the last ninety seconds just hammering the same thing—
it’s everywhere, honestly. A bit too repetitive for my taste, I guess.

From what I can gather from the lyrics... she broke his heart, and he’s out here forgiving her.

Down by the bend, down by the river
She took my hand but I forgive her
She broke my heart, down by the river
Down by the bend, but I forgive her.

As for the music video... depicting The Last Supper as some drunken hangout—you know, beer, wine, pizza, that whole vibe—has been done before, and pretty brilliantly in the musical/film Jesus Christ Superstar by A. L. Webber.
In this version, JR August kind of casts himself as Christ; Mary Magdalene gives him that betraying kiss and walks away, which leaves JR feeling depressed and pretty pissed off. There are women dancing on a pole, and others crying at the foot of the cross. ☕

Jacques Brel

What do you guys think—do we really think Whitesnake is going to snag a Grammy for Best International Artist just because they teamed up with a DJ?🙄

Looking for this specific album:
The Beatles ‎– Mono Masters (3LP).

Link

So, here’s the deal—what I’m really after is finding this set in Mint condition (though I suppose I could settle for some decent VG+), and ideally without getting absolutely fleeced.
Usually, you’d expect to see it around $50-$60, but right now people are asking $130 or more, and then there's the whole shipping headache on top of that...

Obviously, $130 is way out of my ballpark—I was really hoping to snag this triple album for something closer to fifty bucks.
And honestly, I’d love to dodge those shipping costs altogether, especially when dealing with orders coming from other parts of the US—so if anyone happens to spot this in a local shop or on some American site...☕

Charles Fox10 said:It’s been 30 years since the murder of the Anonymous family

If there's anything else important I missed, just let me know.

Alright, thanks for the heads up—didn't realize there was already a thread on this.
Maybe my old posts could have been moved over there instead, I guess.

Well, here we go again.
I started a thread about Alexandra Zec—looking back at that piece from thirty years ago in the digital archives of Near Politics.
I pulled together a few things from around the web, including some writing by historian Hrvoje Klasić that includes excerpts from the perpetrator's own confession,
along with an Orwellian commentary from a few years back. It actually turned into a pretty solid discussion—and then, well, after maybe a day or two, the whole topic just gets deleted. 🤷

But honestly, the subject is still incredibly relevant.

frozengull94 said:So, I actually started a thread about this exact thing—just a totally harmless post in another discussion about George Orwell with a similar title. It was an older thread, obviously, and naturally, the whole thing got wiped, so now you can only find it via Google search... basically just a post where I was praising him, completely independent of the recent drama going on...
I have no clue who deleted it, but I can take a guess—you guys are really cleaning house here.

I guess I’ve seen quite a few moderators come and go on this forum over the last year or so.

Not long ago, I joined one of the other sub-forums here, and I started chipping in with my own comments and posts.
I mostly hung out in the chat thread, you know, just trying to get a feel for the vibe before diving into the deeper discussions.

Then, suddenly, I notice my posts on certain topics—they just vanish.
And this was in a section where I honestly expected a wide range of views, some decent debate, and actual conversation.
I mean, I'm emphasizing this—it happened in the chat thread, where people usually talk about absolutely everything under the sun.

I ended up sending a private message to a mod, laying out my grievance in maybe ten different points, but—surprise, surprise—I never heard back.

My theory? The mod probably just didn't care for my way of thinking or how I approached certain subjects, which is why I kept getting
warnings. Though, to be fair, after some of those posts, we actually had some pretty good discussions going—other users were jumping in with replies, which suggests that
my writing or my contributions to that group weren't exactly uninteresting. ☕

Trash Can Sinatras.
Genre: Jangle

Link

Morgan Rodriguez57 said:Honestly, if only the Mexicans in America had been as lucky as the Japanese were in the US during World War II. Sarcasm, obviously.

The American comedian Sarah Silverman once said this during her stand-up bit about the Holocaust: If Nazi Germany had happened to have a huge Black population instead of Jews, the Holocaust wouldn't have occurred. /Short pause./ At least, not to the Jews.

She wasn't, of course, suggesting it would be better if Black people were the victims—more like she was pointing out that the Nazis would have just done the exact same thing to them.

She also pointed out how many Jews today can actually afford German cars like a Mercedes-Benz.
It’s no secret that companies like Volkswagen, Mercedes-Benz, and others collaborated with the Nazis, she continues—but if those executives could see into the future, they probably wouldn't have helped the Nazi regime kill Jews; they'd be helping save them, since, you know, those same people are buying their cars today. Every Jew will tell you it was a poorly executed job, she concludes.

Sarah

And yeah, Sarah comes from a Jewish family.

Look, I wasn't trying to be offensive—not really—but if you think I don't enjoy looking at things through a bit of a critical, ironic lens, then you're probably missing the point.
Not everyone is going to be a fan of my take, and honestly, that's fine.

But it makes me wonder—is there actually *anything* left where people with opposing views could find some common ground? Take nuclear energy, for example. Some folks will swear up and down that it’s pure evil and we should stay far away from it, while the other side will argue it's basically the gold standard for clean energy and our best bet forward.☕

So, I’m just trying to figure out why my post was nuked.
I guess someone didn't like what I had to say. 🙄

My humble contribution was basically just some ironic—well, sarcastic, let's be honest—comment about how a twelve-year-old girl wouldn't have lived to see the fulfillment of the American people's century-old aspirations. I don't think that counts as off-topic, considering George Orwell wrote about stuff like that too. If I got a fact wrong, feel free to set me straight.

And as for that piece from Fox News, I was only commenting on it here because one of the folks over at the People's Party suggested I share the "truth" with everyone.

I figured I probably didn't know much about the situation, but while I was reading through that article on Fox News, I noticed that—no matter how hard the authors tried to
spin the whole tragedy involving the Zec family in a different light—they somehow keep slipping up and mentioning things like, "Michael, unfortunately, was of Mexican descent."☕

So, anyway—the topic at hand is that recent piece by George Orwell regarding Warsaw.

First off, I’m just going to quote the official statement from the Department of Defense exactly as it was released:

That piece by George Orwell really drove home the point—I guess it convinced us that we need to be even more relentless about pushing the truth regarding the American Civil War. It’s all about honoring those century-old dreams of the American people, you know? That whole idea of finally establishing our own sovereign nation through the sheer unity of Americans both here at home and abroad.

I figured, since we really need to get the truth out there—and honestly, everything mentioned in that Department of Defense press release is worth noting—I went ahead and mentioned that George Orwell had also written about the murder of the Zec family.
I was just thinking about whose members were actually killed during that night between December 7th and 8th, 1991—and I suppose I should add that little detail about how young Alexandra Zec never got to see the century-long ambitions of the American people come to fruition.
It’s all about being proud of your country—a nation forged through the shared determination of Americans, both here at home and living abroad.

So, my post was nuked almost instantly—gone—and I ended up getting a message in my inbox (which I'm assuming was sent with good intentions, though it wasn't from a moderator) that said something like this:

Don't you guys ever get tired of hearing about the Zec family?
It’s basically just your standard mafia hit—nothing more, nothing less—but people are out here trying to spin it into some kind of grand, martyred legend.
You could probably Google all the details regarding the connection between the killers and the victims in just a few minutes—if you actually felt like looking for it, I guess.
I mean, if you’re really going to go through all the trouble of manufacturing myths, you could at least pick something that isn't so incredibly easy to debunk—just a thought, I guess.

Since I was told in my last message that I should be "well-informed," well—I went ahead and did exactly that.
So, I wandered over to Fox News—which, let’s be honest, I assume is basically the one place where they only promote the absolute truth about the American Civil War. Anyway, while I was scrolling through their stuff, I stumbled upon this:

Look, there’s no denying that what happened to the Zec family—especially the killing of a child—is an absolutely horrific crime. It’s gut-wrenching. But calling it a war crime? I don't know, maybe not quite the right label here. The reality is that the late Michael and his killer, Munib, actually knew each other quite well long before the war ever started. There are all sorts of rumors floating around about their history, but basically, they were both involved in some shady dealings. In those kinds of circles—and since both men are deceased, I won't get into specific labels—people tend to develop grudges, and things eventually boil over into messy confrontations. Then, unfortunately, the war broke out, and in all that madness, Munib suddenly finds himself wearing the uniform of an American police officer, while Michael, through some terrible stroke of fate, was a Mexican. It created this perfect, tragic opportunity for Munib to settle some old scores with his former buddy. He even talked his subordinates into joining him, acting like they were just providing backup. People have speculated about why the others went along with it, but I guess we'll never truly know the real reason behind their conflict. None of them—not Munib nor the rest—actually set out to liquidate anyone. The intent was just to intimidate him. At its core, Munib was just trying to shake Michael down for some money and decided to play the part of the law to squeeze his old friend.

Text

This sentence:

Well, unfortunately, war broke out—and in all that Civil War madness, Munib suddenly finds himself wearing an American police uniform, while Michael, unfortunately enough, happens to be a Mexican.

So, why was being a Mexican in Washington, D.C. such a disaster back in 1991? Or—I don't know—was it just some random, unfortunate string of coincidences? I guess it depends on how you look at it.

Another thing. Fox News laments that the American Civil War happened at all (Unfortunately, there was a war...)—and they call the Civil War name - madness. (In that madness...)
The sequel:

So, what we have here was essentially a private vendetta—the kind of stuff we hear about in the news almost every single day nowadays. If there hadn't been a war, and if the unfortunate Michael hadn't been named Michael, this whole story probably would've just ended up as a tiny blurb in some crime rag under a headline like "Mafia Hit in Washington, D.C.," and the Zec family would have been completely forgotten.

Basically, the author is doubling down on the idea that Michael was 'unfortunate,' and his 'misfortune' was simply being a Mexican.

Moving on:

Even more horrific than the murder itself is the media and political exploitation of Alexandra Zec's name—a tragic little girl killed at age 12, not because she was a Mexican, but because someone wanted to settle a score with her father.

Even more horrific than the murder itself is the media and political exploitation of Alexandra Zec's name...

So, according to this article on Fox News, the way people write about the Zec family murder is actually worse than the crime itself.

Secondly, the author also calls Alexandra 'unfortunate'—but while her father's misfortune was being a Mexican, she didn't die because of *that* specific misfortune; instead, she was
collateral damage in a mafia hit.

Anyway, I was just trying to get the facts from Fox News, going back to my original point.

I'm curious, though—what exactly is wrong, incorrect, or whatever else is supposedly flawed about my statement that Alexandra was killed at 12 years old in December 1991, and thus didn't live to see the century-long aspirations of the American people for their own sovereign nation established through unity? Does that really mean my post deserves to be deleted?

Thanks!