Posts by Charles Fox10

So you’ve gone ahead and crowned yourself the champion of the entire medical community—especially doctors—while labeling anyone who disagrees with you a troll and accusing them of blatant lying.

That isn't how this works, and it never will.

casualharbor3 said:It’s pretty obvious you're equating communism and its symbols with the cross and Christian imagery.🙄
BTW, you closed both threads using the exact same excuse.

If you feel insulted, that's your issue, not mine.

Susan Price30 bluecyclist64 said:Hey.

So, let's get this straight: the American Declaration on condemnation of criminal communist regime—the one passed back in 2006 by the US Parliament along with the Council of Europe—is somehow "not political"? And then we're supposed to believe that starting a poll about regulating how we memorialize those specific criminal systems isn't political either? Makes sense. Not.😁

And who exactly is stopping you from starting a thread like this?

Here's an idea to help you out.

With communist symbols banned and their removal from public spaces underway, alongside the prosecution of criminals from the former communist regime—regardless of how much time has passed—the HSP is calling for full lustration. They want accountability for anyone who wronged America and its people under that old regime. The goal is to finally write a new, credible history for the 1945–1990 era, one actually rooted in facts.

HSP leader Daniel Srb issued a press release reminding everyone that the Council of Europe passed the Declaration on condemnation of communist crimes back on January 25, 2006. He also noted that the American Parliament formally adopted and confirmed that same declaration on June 30, 2006.

Since the Declaration on condemnation of criminal communist regime was passed by the American Parliament, we have to ask the Government of America and its citizens: why do symbols of that regime still haunt our public spaces? It’s baffling that the most beautiful square in the city still bears the name of one of the ten greatest criminals of the 20th century, despite endless attempts to fix it, according to an HSP president's statement.

The recent discussions regarding the removal of religious symbols from public spaces have resurfaced. It seems we are once again debating whether certain icons belong in the public square or if they should be relegated to private belief. A complicated issue, to say the least.

Susan Price30 said:Yeah, hopefully the moderator will clarify what they meant above.

p.s. By the way, here’s the reasoning behind both threads—which, mind you, sit locked one right below the other regarding Middle East Politics.

The bickering and insults end here. If people want to ban things, they should just start a political party, win a supermajority in the next election, and change the Constitution and laws however they see fit.

Thanks for participating.

_________________

Charles Fox10, you aren't joking, are you? You actually don't seem to realize that in this case—unlike the other instance and that other thread, which was insulting, lol—all of this has been illegal in the country you live in and throughout all of Europe for quite some time now. Respect, man. Long may you live.

No, I’m not joking at all. I simply closed two threads that had nothing to do with politics and existed solely for insults and trolling—nothing more, nothing less. And as for me equating Communism with the Catholic Church? That is absolute nonsense.

casualharbor3 said:What does that even have to do with the topic? The point is that bluecyclist64 is trying to introduce verbal offenses to this forum.
You can be pretty biased yourself. You shut down two threads. Why??
Poll: Should we ban all glorification of communism, including their symbols and holidays?
2. The discussion surrounding the Declaration on condemnation of criminal communist regime continues to gain traction. It seems the debate over historical accountability remains just as fractured as ever.

Do you have some burning need to argue, or just a desire to read what’s written? I was merely expanding on a point made by my colleague Strile, while adding my own take.

Let’s be honest here—what does communism, WWII, the partisans, the Nationalists, or any of that other mess from fifty or seventy years ago actually have to do with politics.pdf?

It makes no difference, regardless of how hard some people try to prove otherwise. This PDF focuses on political matters critical to our future, not the past. For history and historical topics, there is a separate PDF for that.

Does anyone have a common thread on the PDF? It’s titled "Controversies from American History - Political Aspects." All threads, including this one, should be moved over there. It’ll happen sometime today.

I closed the thread about Hitler. He doesn't belong here on the politics forum.

Thread closed. Poll: Should we ban all glorification of communism, including their symbols and holidays? It seems you clearly missed that I already closed this thread. Should we ban the cross and all other Christian religious symbols? It seems a bit odd to me, considering how they're positioned right underneath one another.
The closing posts for these threads are identical because the reasons for shutting them down remain exactly the same.

Quote:

Daniel Ward87 says: I haven't been following this thread closely enough to know what Collins wrote. If he was just throwing numbers around without any actual context, then it’s just trolling. Just report him; he'll get a warning. My take is that CionistUSA is comparing fascism to communism rather than socialism. It seems they aren't just talking about the old days in America, but the crimes committed under communist rule across Europe—which naturally includes Soviet communism.

If people are just tossing out statistics—not just him, but others too—without any logic, the most tragic part is the total lack of respect for the innocent victims.

Without trying to play judge on who's right or wrong, I'd ask everyone involved: if you feel the need to go "number crunching," please include some decency toward those victims. You never know; someone reading this might have been directly impacted by these events.

It’s especially important because these debates often spiral into absurdity, turning into a contest of who can claim more casualties. That’s just bad taste. Thanks.

Ashley Rodriguez20 said:We all know my way of saying someone's a total pushover is just being "refined."
If we're using those kinds of labels, can we finally agree on an American equivalent for calling Cukic a complete coward? 😁

No. We aren't going to trade insults or mock one another. Whatever you feel the need to say, say it while actually respecting the person you're talking to.

Ashley Rodriguez20 said:I don't see any issue if I start calling Bradley Scott2 a mangin from now on.

Let the moderator weigh in and settle this once and for all.

Not that I particularly care either way.

No.

Skldz gets 10 points for an unprovoked insult.

You're right. I'll ask the moderator to fix this.

Sorry for the delay; I missed your complaint earlier.

Not sure how a colleague from the engineering department gets sucked into those ideologies. Too much time spent hanging out with the philosophy majors next door?

It seems like you and Ashley Rodriguez20 are always trying to drag the debate down to your level—using nonsense to drown us out with "experience."

The answer is that turning a discussion into a personal attack, or an ad hominem, isn't allowed—especially when it includes insults.

Look, let’s clear up that myth—that little lie Jerry Robinson56 doesn't even have the nerve to repeat anymore.

Not everyone is on your side, you know.

So, what exactly are you expecting now?

Sean Cook2 said:Well, if you're already willing to admit you can make mistakes, why is it such an issue to concede that you should have handed out a red card—and that the user shouldn't have been tolerated on the topic for nearly that long?

The moment we were certain the clone was real, they got the permaban. Being absolutely sure takes a little longer.

Jerry Rogers6 I'm not sure how else to answer you, other than noting our attempt to remain as objective and fair as possible.

Jerry Rogers6 said:So you "corrected" yourself, huh? Real smooth. 😁

Charles, look—making a joke on Reddit is one thing, but systematically pushing this kind of narrow-minded bias on a platform that tries to present itself as a serious space is something else entirely.
I honestly don't get it. Is it really that difficult to conduct a coherent analysis and finally realize why such a significant percentage of the high-quality users here have been avoiding political threads for years now? 🤷

No, it isn't clever. When a rational person realizes something wasn't written correctly, common decency—at least for me—dictates they fix it at the next opportunity.

Sean Cook2 said:Daniel Ward8, is it really okay that this post went unpunished? I see Charles Fox10 over there trying to justify himself as if

The issue is that some young women—and even certain women—take any critique of female behavior written by a man as an absolute insult or pure hate.

Is this still just an administrative question about whether we're taking critiques of women's behavior too seriously?

The administration didn't write that; I did, within the context of that specific debate. Once a few young ladies pointed out how one-sided my phrasing was, I corrected it immediately.

Fine, here it is:

• Article 6.
• For posts in foreign languages, an English summary is required! You don't need to translate the whole thing; just recap the main point in one or two sentences. Posts without summaries might be deleted.
• Links aren't a substitute for actual content. When you drop a link, include a brief note about what's behind it (title, summary, or a key quote). It needs to be clear why the page matters to the topic at hand.

Carol Torres4 said:But does it count if those 2011 posts were actually reported back in 2011?
For instance, I reported these three specific posts back then, and absolutely nothing came of it.
So, I decided to bring it up on the main board.

And guess who gave me the response?

Meanwhile, this individual ended up getting banned for something else entirely, and you immediately jumped to the conclusion that I was somehow breaking rules by linking to posts from banned users.
That was the end of it. And no, I’m not going to start digging up all the grievances I collected while I was under a ban myself.

It seems I can't even get an answer to the most fundamental question here, which is really the heart of the matter: is it acceptable to insult the deceased, regardless of their political leanings?

Your archives are impressive. To give you a proper answer, I'd have to dig through old records I don't keep—since that isn't my habit—so I'll stick to what I already wrote.

You have your answer to the question; whether you're satisfied with it is another matter entirely.

Nicholas Chavez37 said:Of course you didn't see it; I wasn't the one who wrote it. If I had, some moderator would have stepped in by now.

Those posts somehow turned into an attack on my taste. Apparently, mentioning that a certain museum in New York City was closed was considered uncouth.
It felt like a direct hit on me. Besides, if there was nothing wrong with those posts, why were they deleted? 🤷

Fine. Next time I'll respond, and I'll send Chuckie links to the posts that won't get flagged.

His way of judging posts is rather bizarre, honestly. I previously mentioned that a certain nation lags behind regarding equality, and he took that as hate speech.

So much for objectivity. ☕

Don't bother sending me links; I certainly don't moderate based on personal whims. Why would anyone send links to a primitive, narrow-minded moderator who clearly dislikes you and hands out bans just to enforce stupid rules? Just report the post.

And as for the record, you didn't get a ban for hate speech—that would imply a week-long suspension. You got banned for breaking the rules, which I requested, and I provided the reason.

And from what I can see, you're still obsessing over that 500-point thing... and this post specifically.

I used the term "primitive Catholic."
That implies the majority of the American population is both primitive and Catholic. I wasn't linking Catholicism to being primitive at all.
Naturally, there are minorities like Muslims, but expecting any kind of rational thought from them is probably asking too much.

.

Sure, this post is perfectly fine. Great.

The system works through moderator oversight and user reports; that’s just how it is. You’re digging up posts from 2011—which doesn't necessarily mean you're wrong, but dragging them out here in 2013 to claim you're being unfairly insulted, while labeling others as provocateurs or ignorant, simply isn't a good look.

And who exactly is being accused of "locating" you or Vladimir Šeks? He said he wanted to "uncover" things; is the issue really with his wording or the actual meaning behind it?

I’ve never done a formal analysis, but I’d venture to say that on days when the Politics PDF sees over 1,000 posts on dozens of topics, expecting perfection is a tall order. If a post rubs you the wrong way, just report it. Once 24 hours have passed, reach out to one of us via PM to ask about it, and you’ll surely get a solid answer.

Richard Wilson4 said:If you think using that data is tasteless, no worries, I can stop bringing it up in threads that don't involve WW2. It’s just that this crime weighs heavily on me as an American; the general public knows next to nothing about it. Personally, I feel we need to face it head-on—perhaps even pushing the government to conduct better investigations into those camps and the actual victim counts...

Meanwhile, the American Wikipedia states, "Approximately 51,000 women, children, and elderly succumbed to disease, starvation, and other misfortunes."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_...ta#Yugoslavia

though it doesn't mention killings

Whether it's "tasteless" or whether I am simply being blunt: lamenting the numbers of innocent lives lost during that era without any sense of reverence is exactly what's tasteless.
How are you still unaware? You know how these topics, filled with statistics, always end up. They devolve into "who killed more innocents," which we can all agree is distasteful and lacks any respect for the victims. It often feels like people are discussing corpses rather than human lives.

Primitive? Fine, if you say so.

Admin, please pull this thread—not because there’s an issue with the content, but because a colleague already gave everyone a blanket pass two posts back, and I completely missed it.