Posts by crimsonjackal63

With this much junk being shoved in my face, Reddit is becoming almost impossible to use.

lonebadger6 said:I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree. And just to be clear—that’s just my take. I have no idea why other mods didn't hand out bans; I assume the reasons were similar, but I can't speak for them.

To me, that post wasn't even in the same league as calling someone a "Democratic Party pedophile" or a "murderer who loves Bruna Esih." Look, none of us are saints, but contrary to what some people on this forum think, the moderators over at Politics don't all share one single political ideology or worldview—so no, nobody handed out a ban based on a unified consensus.

You didn't address any of my counterarguments, which—fair enough—is your right.

The truth is, your one and only argument so far regarding the "high principles the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops should use to select its members" has completely fallen apart for the reason I already mentioned (Željka Markić has nothing to do with this), plus there's this little detail:
- You tried to defend the user Alexis by claiming the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops is at fault because they failed to uncover that this guy sodomizes his dogs.

The police? Zero points. Neighbors? Zero points. Friends? Zero points. Acquaintances? Zero points. Family? Zero points. Society at large? Zero points. ?????? Zero points. But apparently, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops was supposed to investigate and sniff this out.

Besides, we all know how incredibly complex the hiring procedures are within European Union institutions.
So, the dog-rapist passed the screening, but let's just dump all the blame on the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. And hey, why stop there? Let's generalize it—let's blame Željka Markić, the Church, conservative values, and anything else that breathes conservatism.

Trolling, insults, off-topic posts, and sweeping generalizations shouldn't be tolerated, and that's exactly what's happening here.
You, me, everyone—we all know I'm right.
I'm disappointed. 👎

I'm requesting a response from a supermoderator.

lonebadger6, that controversial post is actually under the thread about Željka Markić.
As far as I can tell, she isn’t the one deciding who joins the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops—she doesn't sit around reviewing candidate resumes—so we can safely say that specific post has no business being in that thread.

In your post, you bring up Plenkovica and Bernardica.
If you throw Željka Markić into that same context, then everything becomes crystal clear to everyone.
Alexis was just trolling and making sweeping generalizations, which is exactly what earns you a warning.

Along those same lines, your arguments about leftists waving Nazi flags, posters of Hitler, or some drunk cop are completely off the mark here—because Željka Markić has absolutely nothing to do with that sick dog abuser working for the European Parliament.
By defending that controversial post, you're slowly but surely sliding into that same territory of overgeneralizing.

That controversial post—and the excuses made for it—are fundamentally no different from those mindless posts about "pedophiles from the Democratic Party" or the "murderer of fan Bruno Esih."

Very few people on this forum actually get the chance to explain their intent before they get hit with a warning.
You get the warning first, and then you're left trying to explain what the writer *actually* meant.
I'm sure you'll agree that in this specific case, things were handled differently.

Go back and read all three of Alexis's posts again—you'll see I'm right.
Those posts were written with one single purpose:
- To smear Željka Markić and the entire conservative worldview.

lonebadger6, of course you’re going to reply to my DMs—but only when it suits you. Fine: I’m done sending them (and for the record, they weren't provocations, just facts), but I actually deserve straight answers to specific questions here, since Pringles doesn't moderate Politics—you and the other moderators of this subforum do.

The reality is crystal clear: sickos like this guy—pedophiles, robbers, murderers, rapists, etc.—exist in every single layer of society. They're among the liberals, the leftists, the conservatives, the right-wingers, the atheists, the agnostics, believers of every faith, and the non-believers alike...
We all agree on that, don't we?

That controversial post and its "clarifications" don't start from that premise at all.
Forumasica linked a disgusting dog rapist directly to Željko Markić, the conservatives, and the Church.
It runs through all three of her posts.
That is ugly, sweeping generalization—something we all know, and something you know too.

That would be like me taking some pedophile, XY, who happens to be a local committee member for, say, the Democratic Party or the Libertarian Party, and linking him to the party's ideology or the broader liberal worldview.
That is totally unacceptable, and a post like that would earn an immediate warning and a ban.
Isn't that how it works...?

So, I’m not being provocative, nor am I accepting provocations; I’m simply insisting on the established rules of this Forum.
I’d appreciate an answer backed by actual arguments.

Just so we’re all on the same page—I’ve already flagged this post (you know, that famous little triangle icon) two or three times. Besides that, I sent a private message to the moderator, lonebadger6, regarding the matter.

If anyone is wondering why I went to moderator lonebadger6 specifically, the answer is pretty straightforward:
- This particular moderator is incredibly sensitive when it comes to generalizations. It’s common knowledge that he’s handed out warnings and banned dozens of users for that exact reason—everything from discussions on immigrants to much more—so I figured I was knocking on the right door. 🤷

At the end of the day, there should be some kind of reaction here, shouldn't there...? ☕

Basically, there's a chance the appeal is incomplete, so let's just quote everything to be safe:
The controversial post regarding Željka Markić looks like this:

Alexis said:Lately, a horrific story has resurfaced about a guy who spent years abusing his dogs—he’s finally been indicted, and a trial should be coming up soon.

This all kicked off back in September 2015 when, according to an article from 09.25.2015 in USA Today, the individual was arrested and an investigation was launched.

The reason I'm dropping this awful article into this thread is because of what the actual news report from 2015 says. There's this whole "conservative revolution" shaking up the country, calling for a return to tradition and a faith measured by ultra-conservatives as the only shield against the "moral decay" of the modern world—specifically atheism. Which is total bullshit, by the way. And that’s exactly what this news story exposes.
.................................................. .................................................. ........
Quote:
A story involving the brutal abuse of two greyhound dogs shocked animal lovers yesterday. Specifically, an individual identified as I. I. (39) from Washington, D.C., a member of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' Council for Ecumenism and Dialogue, has been taken into custody under suspicion of physical and sexual abuse of his dogs. After being reported for animal cruelty, he was processed by police and appeared before a Washington, D.C. Superior Court judge, who ordered pretrial detention due to potential witness tampering. Hardly anyone wanted to comment on the charges facing the 39-year-old yesterday. His acquaintances and a veterinarian only offered brief statements saying they were shocked by the arrest.

“None of us could have ever even suspected this was true, or that he could be abusing dogs. He isn't a breeder, just a dog owner. He was at a show with them this Sunday and it always seemed like he took great care of them. The dogs were happy, playful, and performed well at shows,” said an acquaintance of the arrested man. She described him as a computer genius and somewhat of a reserved person. According to unofficial reports, the criminal complaint alleges the animals were abused from 2009 until now. After investigators knocked on his door and searched his residence, they seized the dogs and transported them to an animal shelter in Dumovcu. Before the dogs were placed in the shelter in Dumovcu, they were examined by a veterinary inspector. Defense circles for I. I. claim the story is “overblown,” and those same circles argue there is no solid evidence for the alleged crime. Within investigative circles, it was suggested that a preliminary exam of the dogs showed nothing to support the allegations of abuse. Through witness testimony and further examinations of the animals, it will be determined whether the suspicions were justified or not.

This disgusting, sick individual is being indirectly and maliciously (to put it mildly) linked to Željka Markić’s worldview and conservative ideology, and that kind of generalization is totally unacceptable.

Clicking on the article about the sicko:
"Washingtonian, also an employee of the European Parliament, sodomized his two dogs"

...you can clearly see this little brat is an employee of the European Parliament, which brings up a very legitimate question:

The top brass and major players within the EU are widely seen as nothing more than enforcers of a strictly, uniformly liberal set of quasi-values.
In that light—and using the rhetoric of that controversial post as our guide—can we say the following without getting ourselves in trouble?
- This brand of liberal exclusivity is shaking the European Union to its core. They’re pushing to tear down every moral boundary in sight, insisting that the "liberal" perspective is the only shield against the supposed "moral decay" of the conservative world—especially religion. What absolute bullshit. And honestly, this news story exposes that perfectly.

Of course, we can't say it—because that kind of sweeping generalization and trolling goes against both common sense and the rules of this forum...
That much is obvious to all of us, isn't it...?

My post just got nuked because I called an interlocutor a liberal fascist over this thread:

..basically—I called them a liberal fascist.
If there isn't actually anything wrong with what I said, then where's the issue?

Topic: unnamed

Primjer kartoniranog posta 01):

unnamed said:Spot on—everything mentioned above pretty much hits the nail on the head. Unnamed is basically being hounded for everything she stands for—her opinions, her look, her core beliefs, and her entire value system. It's relentless.

That's it. Case closed.

Primjer kartoniranog posta 02):

unnamed said:Honestly, this entire thread is a perfect example of what I’m talking about—it’s basically just an endless surge of baseless hate directed at her. It reminds me of those "two minutes of hate" sessions from Orwell’s *1984*.
Take it from me—it seems like you’re seeing things that aren't actually there. I mean, look at the "moral panic" you were spreading just a few posts ago—completely baseless, by the way.

Let’s be real here—you're clearly seeing things that aren't there. Seriously! Just take a breath and calm down.

And man, the so-called mainstream media—it’s unbelievable how they go out of their way to demonize them. It’s just so incredibly forced.
Take a look at this—if your ideological bubble actually lets you see it:

Unnamed and unnamed are out here making noise about statements from unnamed—statements they didn't even actually hear. Seriously? It’s one thing to disagree, but it's another to manufacture a controversy based on nothing. Just a total lack of substance.

An analysis of how NBC lied about what unnamed said.

Primjer kartoniranog posta 03):

Pinzgauer. said:Exactly.

I’m fully backing unnamed here—she’s spot on about the dangers of this gender ideology nonsense. It’s refreshing to see someone actually pushing back against the political agenda designed to tear down everything we hold dear under the guise of liberalism.

We need to take every possible step to shut this down—we have to prevent these kinds of deviations from being pushed as something normal, let alone something desirable.

It’s honestly wild how far people will go just to tear someone down—the existence of that entire website dedicated solely to dragging her name through the mud proves exactly how much vitriol is out there. People really will try anything to defame her.

At the same time, it just goes to show how terrified the liberal crowd is—they’re so scared of losing ground that they aren't even afraid to stoop to the absolute lowest levels just to stay relevant.

I just gave an example of an unedited post on this same topic:

Alexis said:Lately, this horrific story has resurfaced about some individual who spent years abusing their dogs—they’ve finally been indicted, so we should be seeing a trial soon.

This whole thing kicked off back in September 2015. According to an article from September 25, 2015, in the New York Post, the suspect was arrested and the investigation began.

The reason I'm dropping this disgusting article into this thread isn't just because it's gross; it's because of what the original reporting actually said. Back then, a conservative revolution was shaking up the country—people were calling for a return to tradition and a brand of faith that’s ultra-conservative, claiming it's the only shield against the "moral decay" of the modern world, specifically targeting atheism. Honestly? It's total bullshit. And this news story perfectly exposes the hypocrisy behind those claims.

Looking at this comparison makes it crystal clear that the criteria here are totally broken—not to mention this topic is absolutely crawling with moderators.

Klonka, look, this isn't the first time I've seen people on these forums label anyone with a differing opinion as a Nazi or some kind of religious fascist.
This was sent directly to me:

judolino said::
Regarding the bolded part—if and when your country ever becomes Nazi Germany again, then you can start making demands.
But as long as you're living in a democratic USA, just accept that you're the minority here, and that neither you nor your buddies can push laws based on a defeated, totalitarian, clerical-fascist ideology.

Get real.

This post sat there completely unpunished for five or six days in the thread about Željka Markić—and the moderators are practically permanent fixtures there. (There are three or four of them constantly debating in that thread)
It was only deleted after I sent a private request. (Probably without even getting a warning or a strike).

So, let's actually stick to the rules.
If I were to call you a fascist—which, let’s be honest, is what liberals and leftists do to people online all the time—would I actually get a strike from you...?

Since you're actively weighing in on the thread about Željka Markić, I wanted to point out a few things:

A user named Silajn is busy labeling Mestro a fascist:

Silajn said:mestro and his kind[/B], considering your main goal is to roll back civilized progress and tear down a tolerant society by constantly pushing for restrictions against anyone who's "different," there's just no point in calling for a culture of dialogue.

You don't engage in dialogue with fascists.

Then there's judolino, jumping on the bandwagon to insult Mestro:

judolino said:[B]Exactly, dear comrade.
One of the biggest delusions held by those kids with dreadlocks and Che Guevara shirts is thinking you can actually talk to fascists.

I'm sure you know all about what constitutes fascism—just like you clearly know why you support Željka Markić, a religious extremist with whom any form of dialogue is absolutely impossible unless you're totally in lockstep with her.

We've seen this play out countless times during her interviews—the best example being her appearance on Stanković's show.

No—you don't negotiate with people like that. It’s not because the left refuses to talk; it’s because expecting dialogue from a religious zealot like Željka Markić is about as optimistic as expecting a dead woman to return your love.🥱

Since the Rules explicitly forbid insults and provocation, I’m asking you to please sanction these two posts. In any democratic society, it's simply unacceptable to label people with different views—in this case, those with conservative worldviews—as fascists.
That's a total denial of democracy.

Thanks in advance.

Thanks again for all the input, everyone.

lonebadger6 said:Most people get a pass for insulting politicians because it acts as a sort of pressure valve... the kind of things you mentioned usually get scrubbed because they cross the line, though they don't always result in a ban.

When it comes to politicians, we typically issue bans for anyone spreading medical diagnoses—not just calling someone "crazy," but actually labeling them with mental illnesses—as well as more malicious slurs that carry much heavier consequences, like saying "Joe Biden is a traitor" or "Newt Gingrich wishes he could reopen Auschwitz."

But you just said this:
- Stuff like this usually gets deleted:

some primitive, uncultured, ill-mannered hillbilly—it's just awful... a total pig with zero shame or class—all that loud, obnoxious behavior at the tables

And Jay Gatsby said earlier:
- That you can say basically anything about any public figure:

"a fat cow, a drunkard, a disgusting creature, a loser"

Look, I’m not trying to play the genius here—really, I'm not—but with every single post, you guys are proving that Unknown is absolutely right.
Actually, it doesn't even matter who's right.
- The main thing is to stop turning this Forum into a damn dive bar.

Thanks.

William Bennett53 said:What goes for Andrew Cuomo, Todd Solondz, Joe Biden, or Nancy Pelosi also applies to Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, Robert Bork, or John Roberts. You can call any one of them a fat cow, a drunk, a disgusting creature, or a total loser. We don't permit attacks on voters, insults based on race or nationality, or any similar attempts at generalization. Furthermore, posts targeting politicians have been penalized when they become excessively repetitive, as that falls under trolling. To summarize: anything you can get away with saying about Todd Solondz, you can just as easily say about Hillary Clinton, but you certainly can't say it about forum member X.

If that's really how it works, then why was this post deleted?

Kiss said:I see people are already bringing up her throwing her legs up in the air like that

Every time I think she couldn't possibly sink lower, she proves me wrong.
Just such a primitive, uncultured, and ill-mannered hillbilly—it's honestly terrifying... a total beast with zero shame or class—just lounging on chairs like that.

Just to be clear—I'm not against deleting posts like that.
In fact, we should be banning people for it (this isn't some dive bar, after all), and the habit of hurling epithets like "fat cow, drunk, disgusting creature," etc., at public figures needs to end—whether it's directed at Todd Solondz, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, or whoever else.

So, this user is running around with two different handles.
They use one handle to jump into a specific discussion—let's just call it topic xy.
Then, after a while, they just stop posting in topic xy altogether.

Here's the deal:
- How much time needs to pass, how many posts need to go up, or what else is required before that same person can hop back into topic xy using a totally different handle? And obviously, this assumes they aren't just replying to themselves or trying to pull some shady stunt to mislead everyone else on the board.

On the show Polygraph, it was stated publicly that 140,000 Americans were killed in Canada following the end of World War II—which makes it pretty easy to conclude that the total death toll, including all nationalities, climbs north of 200,000.

Here is the link to the Polygraph broadcast from NBC regarding the Pit of Horror, where Mr. Ljeljak presented those figures, noting that there are solid arguments and actual documents to back them up.

The Washington Post has also covered this issue, publicly reporting that same figure of 140,000 killed Americans:

So, seriously—stop harassing or punishing forum members just for sharing their opinions and views. The situation is more than clear.

I really hope nobody here thinks that NBC and The Wall Street Journal are some kind of obscure or revisionist outlets.

You can find just about anything on here—from desperate debaters whining that users whose posts get deleted are actually "inciting censorship," to the downright tragicomic trolling coming from the moderators themselves.

And honestly? What is there even to say? After they finished purging the long-time conservative users, now it’s the moderators' turn because they won't blow their trumpets for the forced ideology being shoved down our throats.
They banned the scapegoat, yet Clancy is still absolutely wrecking the Politics subforum just like he has since day one.
Bravo, really. I wouldn't be surprised if even the Power suit gave up on this failed policy—and yeah, I'm looking at you, Chuck.

The trigger for this thread is that posts were wiped from Bitorajac's bio because some desperate debaters decided his info didn't "fit the topic."
And get this—the same people making those calls are the ones who never said a word when their own moderator posted something claiming one public figure was literally renting out his wife to another. 🤮
Not a single soul in the hierarchy reacted to that, apparently because that counts as "freedom of speech," but suddenly it's a crime to mention a legally binding court ruling:
- Bitorajac was convicted because he broke a guard's arm with a stick.
And obviously, in the context of the song being discussed, that's a perfectly relevant fact—anywhere else except on this Reddit.

But whatever, everything comes out in the wash eventually. I'm sure some desperate debater will pop up any minute now to lock this thread, because clearly, everyone except them is drowning in censorship.
It's a total joke... 🤣

Nicole Vaughn70 said:Maybe this could help 🕺
http://www.renebitorajac.com/?q=node/53

I ovo:

CHICAGO — A famous actor René Bitorajac He’s heading back to the local municipal court soon—all because of that old parking lot blowout at the Los Angeles Convention Center back in April 2004, when... So, some parking attendant named Ivica Suton ended up with a broken arm—thanks to someone using a metal rod. Just another day in paradise, I guess.

René Bitorajac is... It’s already because of that attack on Suton. Sentenced to ten months of probation with a three-year suspended term....which basically means they aren't allowed to commit a crime during that window. Now, Suton—that actor—is actually out there demanding... $20 Regarding the compensation claim.

René Bitorajac is at it again—this time making waves around the local fairgrounds. It’s honestly becoming a bit of a pattern, isn't it? He’s always stirring the pot, and frankly, I can't tell if he's doing it for the laughs or just to see how much chaos he can cause before someone steps in. He’s got that specific way of leaning into the controversy—kind of blunt, kind of loud—that makes you want to either cheer or roll your eyes, depending on how much coffee you've had. This latest stunt at the fair is classic René; he knows exactly which buttons to push to get everyone talking. It’s all part of the act, I suppose, but man, it definitely keeps things interesting. Just my 2 cents.

Bradley Sanders4 said:And they aren't. Bitorajac isn't even the point here.

Look, the topic is "Me Americans," so it’s perfectly logical to point out how Bitorajac himself—since we're already in the business of criticizing—could easily be one of the main characters in this whole mess.
- Picture Čelavi Bitorajac swinging a metal rod at some other poor soul; it's pretty easy to see how he could actually end up in a song or music video like that...
With info like that, it's completely fair to take a critical look at what was really driving the creation of that track.

Of course, this is just my personal opinion—something that shouldn't be suppressed in a democratic society. Deleting posts is suppression, plain and simple: it's censorship.
We really ought to stop with these ugly habits.
And naturally, please just put the deleted post back where it belongs...

Sometimes you just need a little luck on your side;
- Someone actually managed to read the collection of messages, complaints, and comments I spent about fifteen minutes typing out on the "Messages, Complaints, and Comments" section right before its mysterious disappearance. 😍

But honestly, that’s not the point.
What matters way more is that rustywalker42 is onto something here—someone really ought to take action regarding this.

Here is an example of how things *shouldn't* be handled, if you ask me:
- I rushed over to the "Politics" section and found the nearest closed thread with a title like this:
"Should the government ban dangerous wireless tech (WIFI, WLAN) and tablets in schools?"
Here’s the link: http://www.example-us-forum.com/showthread.php?t=933163

- A user puts in the work—writes a solid post, provides links, builds an argument, etc.—only for a moderator to swoop in with an axe and chop the whole thing down at the root. They didn't even wait to see if the topic would spark interest among users or if counterarguments might fuel a deeper debate.
The users themselves should decide if a topic is worth attention—whether it's scientific, fringe, conservative, liberal, whatever—by engaging with it or ignoring it. If it's boring, it should just naturally evaporate from the forum without outside interference.

Bottom line: in the "Politics" section, people should be allowed to open all sorts of topics, and interventions should be kept to an absolute minimum.
Less is more.
That way, the threads that actually matter stay at the top, while the uninteresting ones just fade away on their own.

Generic threads like "The US Government" shouldn't even exist.
When something interesting actually happens within the administration or around Washington, someone will start a specific thread about a specific issue. That’s how the "Politics" section stays relevant.
A topic will last exactly as long as it needs to, and then it'll be replaced by the next big thing coming out of the Government.

I really hope someone takes these good-faith suggestions from the users seriously.