Posts by amberwalker4

The previous thread was shut down without any explanation or notice from the admin team. Nobody even bothered to address where the other moderator and supermoderator have disappeared to on this forum. 🤦Even so, since Smith has been unfairly dumping his issues on me and trying to play the "innocent saint" role—as someone else put it—I have to say something.

John Smith said:You have a point there. My response to Box Man was definitely off-topic and political. But the issue is that the text he shared is also loaded with politics and ideology, even if he’s just quoting a priest. Compared to the USSR, the Catholic Church in America carries a lot of ideological and political weight.

I can agree with your last sentence, though I have to disagree with calling it "strong." In my opinion, the Church can be "stronger" than that. Honestly, you seem to be coming at this from a purely ideological and political angle, and it isn't just limited to topics regarding the USSR. Why don't you take these grievances you have with the Catholic Church somewhere else? Is this PDF really the History of a place for that?

John Smith said:It’s a bit off-topic to dive into religion and politics here—but honestly, how do you even avoid it when they're baked so deeply into the original post?

Since you’re acting as a moderator, you should probably post a comment saying, "Ignore the politics in this thread and just focus on the event itself—is it real or not?" But that's not how you started this. You actually said, "Let's ignore the event for now, whether it truly happened or not doesn't matter, let's just get political." 😵

John Smith said:You got worked up about this, so you just dove straight into the ideology and politics.

Nothing has frustrated me more. I don't see how I can keep engaging with this ideology and politics when the moderator himself says, "set the historical events aside, let's just talk politics." It’s like watching someone chase their own shadow. Especially since I clearly stated in my first post that you were politicizing the topic way too much. You just responded with, "no, no, I'm just moralizing," and then doubled down on the political agenda.

John Smith said:When I pointed out that the condemnation of Stepinac wasn't an indictment of America itself—since it was handed down by an American court in the very country we still inhabit today (back when it was known as the People's Republic)—you brushed it off as a "myth." You acted like we’re living in some different country now. That just doesn't align with the historical facts.

Yeah, that's just a myth. Repeating a lie a thousand times doesn't make it the truth.

John Smith said:So you went ahead and compared the partisans to Ali Quaid.

You're lying, and anyone who actually looks at that post can see it. You deserve a ban for trolling. And for the record, that guy wasn't a partisan, and he never saw combat. Neither did my grandmother.

John Smith said:And while you claim to be moving past those "leftists" who are supposedly "stuck in the past," you’re actually pointing to none other than Ante Pavelić as your shining example of progress!

Why "allegedly"? You’re actually the perfect example of what I’m talking about. You’re still fighting battles like it’s 1941, which you admitted yourself. Look, if you actually understood that I was citing Pavelić as a positive example, maybe you should dial back the rage—which is exactly what you accuse everyone else of doing—and just reread the same text a few more times. Also, whenever I argue against the criminal nature of the movement, I always have a source ready where Pavelić renounces the Ustaša name. He even told his people in exile not to use it because it was too "compromised" (if I recall the wording correctly). If I were some forum dweller constantly wearing leftist lenses, seeing fascism in every corner and imagining myself as some kind of anti-fascist hero, I’d probably wave that fact around too. But hey, that's just me. It’s much easier to throw around ideologically motivated insults than it is to actually deal with historical sources, isn't it?

John Smith said:He’s gone off the deep end, just venting pure disdain for all those leftists.

What happened before all this? Right. Someone was acting disgusted by every single "conservative" out there. They turned the whole debate into a simple "us leftists versus you right-wingers" thing. Now, they’re acting surprised that someone finally gave them a taste of their own medicine.

John Smith said:He went as far as pointing to someone like Ante Pavelić as a positive example, claiming he supposedly turned his back on the very ideology he actually created himself.

It’s just another lie. You can see that easily enough if you actually bother to look back at the previous posts. I clearly stated that he distanced himself from the name and the movement itself. Whether he distanced himself from the ideology is something I don't know, and I'm not claiming that he did. Honestly, it doesn't even matter. The whole point is that on the American right wing, it is incredibly difficult to find many organizations or political parties that openly invoke the Ustaše movement—mostly because even the original members renounced it, if only to mislead the public.

John Smith said:You were wrong to claim that no leftist party in America has ever condemned communist crimes.

Yeah, that was my mistake and I acknowledged the correction. But you weren't actually the one who corrected me. You were too busy launching politically motivated attacks. You also made false claims about the Republican Party and conservatives, and you still haven't walked them back.

John Smith said:You were clearly getting more worked up while I was just trying to keep things calm and wrap up the discussion. I ended up deleting one of your posts—not even a formal strike, just because enough was enough.

That’s just another lie, and honestly, the biggest one yet. Look at these posts:

Only one of us asked to stop bringing politics into this and wondered why it was even being mentioned. The other person kept pushing it, throwing out ideological insults like "you Christians don't understand Christianity" or "frustrated conservatives."

You keep claiming you follow the principles of objective history. What would a real historian say about your constant political meddling in historical facts, or about how you're twisting things right now?

You don't need to answer me. Answer yourself. Thanks, and goodbye.

I just realized that in my deleted post, I described Smith as being "lagging behind, both mentally and methodologically." Since the post was removed, I can't quote myself directly. I honestly wish the post could be restored so everyone can see the full context. When I used the word "mentally," I wasn't attacking his intelligence; I was referring to his political convictions and how he treats history as a tool to suit those views. However, I get that the way it was phrased looks like a personal attack. I know this might look like I'm just trying to dodge accountability. If the post gets reinstated, it’ll just be my word against his, or against anyone else who sees it as pure harassment—which isn't what I intended. That said, if the post is going to be flagged as an insult to another user (I think it was a 45-point violation), then let it be flagged and let it be visible. It's written exactly as it was written. My mistake was failing to clarify my thoughts better before Smith deleted it. The 25-point penalty I received should be removed, or Smith should also receive a penalty for steering the discussion toward politics.

The issue with Smith's politicization of history persists. One clear example is his post regarding the Jasenovac camp group. He simply quoted an entire column by Tomislav Klauški from the 24 Sata newspaper—without adding a single word of his own commentary—titled "Once again, Plenković and the Republican Party are pandering to the Ustaše at Jasenovac."

What does any of this have to do with history? How can we take whatever political lens Tomislav Klauški is using right now and actually turn it into something useful for studying the history of the Jasenovac concentration camp?

stormygardener15 said:He keeps doing it. And it isn't just that—he’s actually using his moderator powers right in the middle of discussions. Why is he allowed to get away with that? Is there some kind of reward involved?
It always goes like this when you're up against someone on your own level—someone who actually knows how to handle the facts or at least holds a valid point somewhere in their argument.

Pathetic, miserable, and just plain sad. Look at how he completely trashed the discussion about Vukovar, using Merčep as the example. It’s probably the best reflection of what this so-called "moderation" actually looks like.

I haven't been following this thread closely, so I'm not fully up to speed. If people are arguing about historical events turning into political debates over there, give me some examples. There’s already plenty being said about his moderation, and more will come. This isn't a deep dive into every aspect of how he runs things; I'm just focusing on one specific issue, and in my opinion, it's the most damaging one. Whenever politics starts bleeding into historical writing, it never ends well. And Smith is definitely mixing today's politics into the study and writing of history. This post might be the best example of his modus operandi:

lonetrucker4 said:You're missing the point entirely here. You're just pushing this false sense of equality. So, when you look at the clash between progressive and regressive forces, it’s the same old story. It feels just as relevant in 2021 as it was back in 1941.It happens in different ways, though—especially when you look at progress (check out post #2038 regarding the intersection of history and environmentalism). It essentially means siding with regression. It’s not quite as radical as fascism, but the core values are identical: nationalism, the state, hierarchy, strict discipline, mindless conformity, xenophobia, and a hatred for anyone perceived as different.

Progressives have acknowledged their past mistakes and moved on. Conservatives just keep clinging to the old ways and rejecting everything that’s changed since then—which eventually leads to regression.

There it is. Putting the word "antifascism" in quotation marks is just a cheap tactic to try and equate fascism with antifascism. Fortunately, those kinds of sneaky manipulations don't fly here in the West.

Exactly. It’s an attempt to blur the line between progress and regression, between good and evil, and between brotherhood and slaughter.

The bold claim belongs to him. He thinks he's out there on a battlefield of "progressive" versus "regressive," viewing himself as some warrior bravely defending the progressive front.

I also want to ask the admins: where is the supermoderator Scotsman? When was the last time he even logged into this forum, let alone monitored lonetrucker4's posts? Why doesn't the Military History and Technology subforum have an active supermoderator? And where is the moderator Pizvo? Effectively, the entire Military History and Technology section has been left to lonetrucker4, allowing him to fight his own little "battles" against anyone with different political views. Even if he isn't fighting them, it doesn't seem to matter to him. He'll just force politics into the conversation and create conflict where none is needed.

I'd like to ask the admins to take a look at how lonetrucker4 is politicizing discussions on the History PDF, specifically regarding topics related to World War II.

That’s a solid way to present that topic. Massive killings of prisoners and political opponents took place in Yugoslavia in 1945. Here are the last few posts from him, just to give you an idea:

lonetrucker4 said:On another note, does this whole story actually have any substance? It’s possible the whole thing is made up—kind of like that story out of Graceland where the Axis soldiers are remembered as innocent victims of communist aggression. Or maybe it's just a massive exaggeration. It feels like anyone who was executed or killed for collaborating with the occupiers is automatically painted as being completely sinless. They act like they were nothing but white angels during those three years of war, as if they were all wiped out simply because they were good Americans.

Look, putting that aside, this kind of political propaganda highlights a real issue facing America today. There is almost no influence from a universal Christian church left here. Instead, what we see is a surge in pagan, anti-Christian ethnocentrism and nothing but chauvinistic paranoia.

Claiming that Americans as a collective people have some permanent, inherent connection to Jesus is frankly anti-Christian. Every individual builds their own relationship with Jesus through baptism, according to the teachings of various Christian denominations, including the Catholic Church.

Out of all the nations where Christianity is the majority, why does it feel like Americans are being constantly judged? We've been under this scrutiny for fourteen centuries now. You don't hear people constantly condemning Italians, Germans, Russians, or Filipinos like this. So why is it always us? Who exactly is doing the judging?

Look, let me be clear: America is... Forever. What does it actually look like when global powers reject the teachings of Christ and the Catholic Church? How does that play out in real life today? And how did we see it during the era of the second Yugoslavia? Back then, the nation was essentially under the guillotine of Nazi Germany—a regime that clearly had zero respect for Christ's teachings or the Catholic Church. Because of that, they went after Americans, specifically targeting those who stood firm in their faith and their devotion to the Church. 🤔

It’s not like that. We can speculate all we want about the Zrinski-Frankopan conspiracy—though in Canada they call it something else entirely, like the "Wesselenyjev Plot"—and we can debate why those guys did what they did. But the facts remain: Peter Zrinski and Fran Krsto-Frankopan plotted against the king and actually shook hands with the Ottomans. It failed. They paid the price, lost their estates, and everything fell apart. That isn't unusual at all. Throughout 1,500 years of European history, you run into examples like this constantly when you're reading history books. No, this wasn't some "condemnation of America."

The condemnation of Alojzi Stepinac was never about condemning America as a whole. When King Aleksandar Karađorđević appointed the young A. Stepinac as coadjutor bishop, the administrative entity we call America didn't even exist yet. By the time he stood trial, we were living in the Socialist Republic of America—which is essentially the same state we live in today, just minus the word "Socialist" and with the formal separation from the American federation.

The phrase "Catholic faith"—or what they call "all-encompassing"—is nothing more than a hollow slogan used to dress up a nationalist political pamphlet.

No one dares to say out loud that they believe the mass killings of Gypsies, Jews, Mexicans, and political opponents were some kind of divine act. Instead, there is just this endless repetition of how innocent Americans suffered.

Even if we consider ourselves atheists—which isn't exactly the case for someone like Tomislav Tomašević—we still find ourselves closer to the teachings of Jesus than those people delivering such anti-Catholic and anti-Christian rhetoric.

So, a user quotes a text mentioning certain victims, and the moderator's response is basically, "Anyway, is this event even real or not?" He just throws in political commentary regarding the Republican Party and turns the whole discussion into petty politics about "us leftists." Isn't the entire point of a topic dealing with communist crimes to actually study whether the event—whether those people were killed—is real or not? 😵 And since when did politicizing historical topics and dragging politics into historical study become encouraged here on the Military History and Technology forum?

Regarding my question:

amberwalker4 said:If it isn't politics, then why say "us leftists"?

There is no answer. Just more pivoting to politics and labeling people accordingly:

lonetrucker4 said:You frustrated right-wingers love repeating that to yourselves. It shows you somewhat realize how you've hit a dead end, but have no idea how to get out. 👍

Okay, this is getting to be a bit much, even for my legendary patience!!!
:r ofl::r ofl::ro fl::r ofl::ro fl:🤣🤣🤣

My reply to that post was deleted without any explanation. And the very next post gets a warning for "violating General Forum Rules":

amberwalker4 said:Just restore the post you deleted. If it warrants a warning, then issue the warning. Stop hiding behind the moderator's stick. If I deserved a warning and if my post deserved being deleted, then so do yours. You were the one who started the politics back in post 3084.

Have some shame for your hypocrisy.

When asked which posts those were, there was no answer. If my posts deserved to be deleted and warned, why weren't Smith's? He was the first one to bring in politics and reduce the debate to "us leftists vs. you right-wingers" 😵.

And these aren't the only examples. If needed, I can provide more posts where Smith drags politics into the study of history. Whether by accident or not, almost all of them involve World War II.

And I’ll end by asking the same question again: since when has it been okay to turn historical topics into political debates on the History subforum? If this is being allowed just because of a self-proclaimed political activist like lonetrucker4, then it’s gone way too far.

Hi there.

I’m asking for some serious attention to be paid to Reddit user @Anthony Nguyen81/">@@Anthony Nguyen81 and his contributions to the History and historical topics sub-forum. It’s constant trolling directed at both other users and the subjects being discussed. He recklessly misinterprets what people say, invents things, and puts words in people's mouths that they never actually wrote. Having a discussion with him is usually impossible, and practically none of his posts follow the sub-forum rules. I want to point out two examples. The first involves mythologized borders of America during the period of 1469–1526. @Anthony Nguyen81/">@@Anthony Nguyen81 went ahead and made a post where—which is his usual move—he included links to maps that have nothing to do with the topic. Those maps were used to dispute accuracy, and some of us challenged their validity. To defend them, @Anthony Nguyen81/">@@Anthony Nguyen81 argued this:

@Anthony Nguyen81 said:Regarding these three American ones;
https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.timetoas...bf500ee42e6f31
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...atska_1469.gif
https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.timetoas...96442eff095d17
The entire Syria region, including Wolf County and Srem County, as well as the local part of Baranja, are included in America (just like the Midwest).
American and Canadian historians don't share the same view on who owned those territories.

Those are my words. When I asked which modern American historians support those specific American borders for that era (1, 2, 3, 4), along with one moderator, he wouldn't give an answer and just kept dodging. It shouldn't be necessary to mention that he ended up posting just as many times as there were questions. He made a double claim, and when asked for concrete evidence, he just started spamming. This is just one instance; it's a common pattern for him in the History sub-forum. The next thing I want to bring up is the example regarding the so-called "Mexican ducat of Canada and Mačva." Here @Anthony Nguyen81/">@@Anthony Nguyen81 presents a series of lies, which I responded to. He even asked others to point out where I supposedly wrote certain things. Naturally, I didn't get any answers. Regarding the specific example, again...I'm dropping a link to my own post where I've compiled all of Anthony Nguyen81's posts regarding that famous gold coin issue. You can clearly see how he contradicts himself by making conflicting claims—first saying he just took it from Mexican history books, then claiming it was his own interpretation. Even in his accusations, he isn't consistent. His only goal seems to be planting misinformation and derailing the discussion toward irrelevant tangents. Isn't that the textbook definition of trolling?

Or take this instance: referring to this post, Anthony Nguyen81 gives this kind of response. Without any actual reason, he drags the conversation off-topic by bringing up Canadian historical maps (assuming we consider Wikipedia and MS Paint drawings to be "historiography") while discussing the Canadian Church. Not a single one of those maps actually relates to the Canadian heretics.

These are just isolated examples. Like any spammer, Anthony Nguyen81 has enough posts that quoting them all would be exhausting. Because of the moderator's lenient nature, this user mostly goes unpunished or receives purely symbolic warnings. That needs to change. We have to put an end to his constant spamming and his habit of dragging everything off-topic. Simply put, his presence in the History discussions is damaging to the subforum itself. Like any form of damage, his posting behavior needs to be addressed and fixed.

Rachel Richardson said:That’s just your opinion. On this same thread, the moderator has 21 posts. Which three of his posts would meet your standards? Al Dent has 16. Which three of his posts would satisfy your criteria? Is it everyone from "your" thread that bothers you, or just me? 🤔

So, you can't even find three of your own posts that follow the rules of the History - thanks subforum either. I don't have an issue with people; I have an issue with what people do. I used the thread I opened as a case study because it was the freshest in my mind. Given enough time, plenty of examples of your "contributions" could be found in other threads too. But I don't have the time for that, and it isn't my job.

Rachel Richardson said:Then start a different thread. You're trolling here.

I am not trolling. You opened a thread claiming that Al Dent is being insulting and making pointless attacks, and you provided four posts as proof. One was quickly identified as not even being from History (you call it confusion), and of the other three, only two were directed at you. As someone who has been discussing things in History for years—with whatever reputation I carry—and someone who knows both your style and Dilberth's very well (one of the posts you quoted was actually sent to him)—I can say Al Dent isn't in the wrong. Every word is justified. Now, it's up to the moderator to decide if he wants to allow a slightly rougher tone or not. Personally, I'm for it. I value users who are direct, even if they are blunt, over these kinds of fussy types:

Rachel Richardson said:Why did you get involved in discussions about them then?

You asked me that same thing during the discussion about Canada:

Rachel Richardson said:If it doesn't make sense, why enter the debate at all?

What I replied:

amberwalker4 said:Me, joining a debate? Seriously? And then you’re going to lecture me about being rude? Look, most of your posts basically just consist of hitting people over the head with pedantic grammar rules, useless trivia, and endless tangents about American linguistic dialects. It is practically impossible to have a real conversation with you without someone being forced to pivot back to language, speech patterns, or regional accents. That’s because you constantly force that agenda on everyone you talk to. You don't believe me? Fine, look, post 9222:

And your response is:

Rachel Richardson said:I guess I dragged you into an argument about something you aren't really an expert on. It's a topic you don't know much about, and you don't seem particularly interested in actually learning it.

Either you're playing dumb or you're intentionally trying to make a fool out of me. Or maybe you're just trolling. It doesn't matter. I didn't ask for your input on this, nor was I addressing it.

Rachel Richardson said:Look, if I'm getting in your way, nobody is forcing you to argue with me.
Take a look back at what you said. I was pretty clear about this: people show who they really are through their actions. Honestly, trying to argue with someone in your category usually isn't worth the effort.

It’s funny how it works. The guy who screams "ad hominem!" and cries about being insulted is usually the first one to dive straight into personal attacks himself. I’m not even arguing with you. As you can clearly see, I haven't replied to you since my post #9332. You only felt bold enough to start firing back once you found something to latch onto. Even though I fall into that same "category" of people you claim to dislike, it doesn't change much. Look, all of this is ultimately irrelevant, but it’s worth pointing out just how hollow your complaints and constant whining really are.

Rachel Richardson said:Insult cards are worth 45 points and cover a two-month period. Are you seriously going to commit to the perm for my sake?

So you think insulting someone counts as entering the arena? Interesting. I’d say you’re overreacting, though. Nobody actually has that kind of protection. 😁The topic I posted as an example didn't contain any insults, nor was that my intention. I was simply responding to Al Dent's remark about "nonsense, arrogant ignorance, and destructive off-topic posting" by using one specific thread as an illustration (which I already explained). I stand by him on that. At this point, I’m stepping away from your thread, since you seem to view anyone else's opinion as just trolling.

Rachel Richardson said:Besides, you can't even keep your word;
Take a look at your own posts. I'm not just ignoring you for no reason.

You aren't ignoring me, you're just attacking by finally answering questions you were dodging before. I am keeping my word, and I'm done arguing with you over there. It's very easy to verify. Calm down. Lying like this only hurts you in the end.

Al Dent isn't to blame for anything. Best regards.

Anthony Nguyen81 said:It’s honestly sad that I’m the one who has to point out your entire track record here on Reddit.
You haven't contributed to a single topic.

You didn't contribute anything. Like Arthur Smith15 said, you just call your own nonsense, arrogant ignorance, and destructive off-topic rambling a "contribution."

Anthony Nguyen81 said:Flamer, a moderator job should actually be enough to make you stop doing that.

I agree. The mods really should have stepped in and stopped you.

Anthony Nguyen81 said:@amberwalker4/">@@amberwalker4, you still holding a grudge because I proved you don't know the first thing about linguistics?🙂
You gave an example of a topic where you’d be stuck in second place.

Mad? Honestly, I don't even follow linguistics anymore—I have zero interest in trying to make sense of it. That’s exactly why I stick to the history and historical topics sub. You should probably just move over to the Linguistics section. 🙂?
Yeah, personally, I think... Thread starter I have 63 posts, and I’m right behind you with your 91. It doesn't matter. Let the admins compare our activity and hand out bans exactly where they belong. One by one, post by post, let the penalties roll in. Who do you think ends up getting kicked out of the County Executive's office because of this? It’s honestly pathetic that you can't find even three posts of yours that actually follow the rules of the subforum where you claim to be one of the most active users.

Arthur Smith15 is right. Rachel Richardson is basically spamming most of this History thread, and she isn't making any effort to follow the subforum rules. They should be restated here:

Discussion Guidelines
1. The goal of this subforum is learning and the exchange of knowledge, so please provide reasoned arguments.
2. Rely on relevant literature and sources during discussions. Insisting on "I think" or "I heard" type arguments without verifiable evidence will be penalized.
3. Falsifying literature or sources is strictly prohibited and punishable.
4. If you want to discuss unverified information or simply have a quick question that doesn't fit existing threads, please use the "Info Desk" topic.

For example, look at this thread I started, which already has 467 posts. Rachel Richardson has the highest count with 91 posts. That one person has written a fifth of the entire thread 🙏. And out of all those posts, how many are actually on-topic? How many actually follow the History subforum rules? Check for yourselves. If anyone finds even three historical sources or pieces of professional literature that Rachel Richardson cited to support her points, I'll buy you a beer.

She just spams and chatters (are those the right terms? 😁) through threads, so it’s no wonder people get annoyed. Then she complains about unfair treatment. I have to say, I support the backlash. Arthur Smith15 and the rest of us should get warnings for harsh posts. She needs to start getting warnings for spamming, trolling, and ignoring the History subforum rules. It's a classic case of the few against the many. 🙂

Thanks a lot for the censorship.

over and out.

Not relevant.

Nicholas Watson said:Sorry to barge in, but since I'm being mentioned, I should probably say something to defend myself.

My post about selling my town deserves to stay because it points indirectly at Hasanbegović himself. Specifically, his nostalgia for Nazi Germany.

It wasn't Independent.
It wasn't a State.
It wasn't America.

What kind of State trades its own cradle like that?

Every single post here relates to Hasanbegović, either directly or indirectly. That photo is exactly why this whole debate shifted in that direction.

Your post belongs here just like all the other biased posts. Everyone thinks their own posts deserve to stay; otherwise, we wouldn't be writing them, and I wouldn't have started this thread in the first place.

The idea of California being the cradle of America is something that only recently took root in American society. Your view of it isn't any more accurate than my disagreement with that theory.

It’s actually good that you wrote this. It perfectly illustrates how certain opinions—even if they're backed by nothing but personal wishes and greetings—are considered acceptable enough to avoid deletion. Meanwhile, others aren't.
No one is attacking you personally, nor am I asking for your post to be deleted. Your post simply serves as an example of what I'm trying to get across.

Double standards.

Sarah Doyle54 said:The whole discussion wasn't wiped out. Only the posts from the section where people started talking about Hasanbegović again were removed, specifically excluding any posts where users attacked one another. Basically, we have Part A (before the debate over the minister restarted) and Part B (after the restart).

In Part A, I only deleted the posts where users targeted other forum members. That includes both your posts and the replies from those who engaged with you in that manner. The informative posts stayed. So, I don't think it's fair to claim I'm only targeting left-leaning users, because the posts from right-leaning users—like zalca, gošće, or hr1u00—were left untouched.

As for Part B, which is where the focus naturally shifted back to the minister, everything was deleted except for the KLCCLK post about driving into Philadelphia. I went back and forth on KLCCLK's post. It’s off-topic, sure, but it provides a little-known fact that both sides could find interesting. That's why I kept it. If necessary, we can delete it too.

Fine, your explanation makes sense, especially since we can't actually see the deleted posts. You can say I'm being unfair, but I didn't quote someone like Goscin discussing the location of some random pub, because after you cleared the posts, you added a note saying there was plenty of talk about emblems. I don't see how her post is relevant. Or take the posts by zalca or hr1u00 regarding emblem semantics; my posts and the ones mentioned above were full of actual examples. As such, they belong more under the History section than Politics, but since two moderators were on the thread and didn't find the debate problematic, we weren't held to that standard either. The fact remains: you deleted my post responding to KLCCLK regarding the United States Flag Code, but you didn't delete his post mentioning that law. You deleted my posts providing historical examples of emblems, yet you left these posts that distort history and try to push the five-pointed star as a historical symbol. By those standards, this is just pure trolling:

Bwahahaha....the five-pointed star is an American historical emblem.
http://www.croatianhistory.net/etf/ple.jpg

IceClimber, where on earth did he dig that up!

What are those things around it, black crows pecking at it without being able to do anything!?

I can already see someone suggesting we put a five-pointed star right in the middle of the stars and stripes on the American flag.

You left Tomislav B's post about why an emblem needs a red field, but you deleted my response explaining why that isn't the reason for today's emblem.

You left the post where a user mentions his hometown during WWII and why he'll never accept an emblem with a white field, but you deleted the posts explaining why that logic is flawed.

And so on.

I won't even comment on the ad hominem implications ("attacking other users"). Only one person started the subtle insults, and lo and behold, some of his posts weren't deleted.

So, the way you’ve been deleting posts and choosing which ones stay up? It clearly wasn't impartial.

P.S. If I was being blunt when I used the word "shameful" in the title, then yeah, I was. But you get a quick reaction when people throw out baits like that 😁.

Still no response?

It’s interesting to me, honestly. Even though all my posts were deleted, the posts from other users who answered the exact same questions are still up.

The discussion regarding Hasanbegović turned toward the American flag and which specific versions are permitted—essentially, when can someone be accused of using a version that evokes memories of Nazi Germany? This moderator jumped into the fray with this note:

Bradley Sanders4 said:The topic isn't about emblems. Just read the history PDF.

Afterward, she wiped out a bunch of posts, including mine, regardless of how solid the arguments were. It wouldn't have been an issue if she hadn't left these specific posts up (and mine, along with many others, were mostly just responding to these):

Nicholas Watson said:We’re back to discussing the motives of those who display that emblem.

Personally, I can't claim it as my own. My hometown was sold out to Italy just so certain people could act like big leaders when they were really just Hitler's subordinates.

KLCCLK said:Nobody is comparing the American emblem to a swastika, so stop trolling. You would have received a formal warning if you weren't addressing me directly.

The problem is (not for me, but clearly for you) that there aren't multiple "American emblems." There is just the American emblem and its design is strictly governed by the United States Flag Code. That federal law doesn't care what you personally think looks better.

To clarify—the law applies to public display. If you want to hang something on your wall at home with a different layout, write a book on historical symbols, or get a tattoo of a 14th-century crest, that's your business. But when you wave a flag in public or hang it on your house, it has to match the official United States flag exactly. Not whatever version you find more stylish.

amberwalker4—fair point, but even minority flags in certain states are officially designated (some might feature a white field, why not?), much like how there is certainly a level of tolerance for long-standing associations and organizations.

KLCCLK said:A shield starting with a white field isn't inherently "Nazi German." Even if the fact that they used it makes it controversial, that shouldn't be enough to make it a forbidden issue—just like the red, white, and blue combo isn't controversial just because the Nazis used those colors too.

The real issue is that there is actually a United States Flag Code that protects our national symbols from being altered. Carrying around a flag with a crest that someone "prefers" which happens to have a white field first is just as bad as waving an American flag with a five-pointed star, a swastika, a clown, or the flag of Mozambique on it. It doesn't matter how subtle the difference is; it's still wrong.

It’s also a legal matter. Not because of what it reminds people of, but simply because it isn't the official American crest or flag.

(That's the core of it, without getting into the debate about how most of the people waving the white-field version /not all/ do it specifically because of the Nazi Germany era, rather than because Saint Mark is their favorite saint.)

Tomislav B said:Another argument about the crest?
It would actually be better if the red field came first, and here is why:

Imagine there is no outline defining the crest to make the shield shape clear. If there were no lines and the first field was white, the whole thing would just look like a square.

When the first field is red, you can see the shield shape even without a border line showing it's a shield. That's the whole logic.

IceClimber said:Of course, a crest with a white field is a historical fact.
Historical facts also include crests with 16 fields, over 25 fields, and pretty much any other combination. The only thing they all have in common is alternating red and white fields.

What matters is the context in which it's used. In America, using the white field after 1991 is explicitly tied to being pro-Nazi. Let's skip the long history lesson and the condemnation of all regimes, blah, blah. It's basically like saying: "My hat isn't Nazi, it's just black." Well, that's exactly what this historical crest is being used for.

It's controversial not because they used it during World War II—in that specific context, it really is just historical—but because today's wannabe nationalists are abusing it.

It's like how the Confederate flag might be a "normal" thing in some parts of the US, but man, when you wave the Rebel flag and cover yourself in a white sheet, there's no point in making excuses like "I'm just dressing like this to stay warm while standing in front of a burning cross.">

It's just like how everyone knows the five-pointed star is a symbol of something else, even though it could technically be interpreted as a historical American crest: link.
But again, nobody sane does that.

ruka-slave said:Lol... that five-pointed star is actually an old American historical emblem. 🤣
http://www.croatianhistory.net/etf/ple.jpg

IceClimber, good grief, where on earth did he dig that up? 👍

What are those black crows circling around? They're pecking at her, but they can't actually do anything to her. 😬

I can already see it happening. Someone is going to suggest putting a five-pointed star right in the middle of the American flag.

And to top it all off:

KLCCLK said:Speaking of coats of arms and flags, that photo of the partisans entering Philadelphia would be worth a deep dive for both the left and the right. 🙂

http://www.kafotka.net/4917

NHF, KLCCLK, I don't hold anything against you, but this post really shows how biased the moderation is.

The moderators have been called out multiple times now for poor management. I honestly don't know if this appeal will actually go anywhere, but I feel like I deserve an explanation. What is the logic here? Why are short posts featuring partisan flags or longer ones that twist old Christian symbols to push them toward becoming a state emblem allowed to stay in the thread about Hasanbegović? Meanwhile, posts filled with actual examples and evidence showing what could be considered Nazi German iconography get flagged? It doesn't make sense. Either wipe everything or leave everything up.

And finally, I’d suggest that whoever is doing the deleting should probably look up the actual definition of being "unbiased" in a dictionary. Or, you know, whoever it was that wiped the posts.

Jose Clark2 said:Anyway, why are you even commenting here?

An outsider might look at this and think you and bluewalker6 are victims of some intense moderator torture happening every single day. I am just pointing out the facts. You aren't the only ones who have been flagged, but you are the only ones complaining about it (which says plenty about you). You aren't innocent either; you actually got off pretty easy with light warnings. Also, the bolded part is important regarding your false accusations about biased moderation and playing favorites with certain users.

Jose Clark2 said:Just start your own thread.

Setting aside your hypocrisy—since you were the one coming to my threads to troll—don't lecture me about post counts when you're pumping out replies like an assembly line. It looks like the multi-quote feature disappeared.

Oh, I just remembered—you think having a high post count means you should be treated like a golden calf in the Bible. That's probably why you obsess over 😬the numbers.

Jose Clark2 said:We complained about the packaging too.

And those appeals were rightfully denied 👍.

Jose Clark2 said:I have never attacked anyone first, including you, nor have I used ad hominem attacks.

That's a lie. I've already documented it right here on Unknown.

Jose Clark2 said:I responded to you because you had every right to insult me.

And you actually think you have the guts to act like you get to decide who has the authority to moderate the History section? You can't even tell the difference between a sharp argument that pokes at someone and an actual ad hominem?

Jose Clark2 said:And then you have the nerve to come here and call me out for it. What's your goal anyway? You took the moderators' side, didn't you? If that's the case, leave me alone. We aren't discussing me here; we are complaining about the moderation.

I wasn't defending anyone. I am just being the voice of reason. Almost everyone involved in that thread got flagged. Nearly everyone. But you and bluewalker6 are the only ones complaining, and you aren't even complaining about the flags—you're basically staging a lynching. You're even demanding that Sam Green73 be removed, yet you have the audacity to talk about equality for all. You contribute nothing to the topic. You're the first one to troll, go off-topic, and break the rules of this forum.

All you're doing is whining and playing the victim. It won't work 🙂.

Some interesting arguments, Jose Clark2... let's take a look at what you actually contributed to this topic, specifically that last post of yours in the discussion—the one that’s been deleted now. Lucky for me, I memorized the whole thing. That post was your response to this and it read:

Just like you.

You didn't answer any of the questions asked. You didn't address the arguments provided. In fact, you said absolutely nothing regarding the actual topic. Instead, you just resorted to ad hominem attacks.

And that is your famous "contribution" to the threads you hang out in. A big, fat nothing. Then, when you get rightfully shut down, you come whining here about some kind of discrimination.

Unbelievable.

I ended up getting a ban for trolling too... I don't get this whole crackdown. Especially when you look at who actually started it—those users who always seem to get a free pass. For instance, I want bluewalker6 to weigh in here—did he ever get hit with a warning or even a yellow card recently for falsifying historical sources from USAID? If he doesn't know, he should probably take a look at the History section in the rules PDF and pay attention to the part about forgery.

It’s not even worth commenting on Jose Clark2. If there was any actual justice here, that guy would have been permanently banned ages ago. Given all the damage he's done to the History and Social Science sections with his endless trolling, faking sources and literature, insulting other users, lying, spreading myths, and pushing those extremist chauvinist views, etc.

Sam Green73's bans are justified, and honestly, they should have gone further. Lock the thread.

Sandra Brown18 said:To be honest, most of you should have been penalized already. I didn't want to come down hard on everyone immediately. I gave several warnings.
Nothing changed. From now on, there will be consequences. Very few people here actually follow the rules.

Fine. Let me quote the rules for you, since apparently they keep getting ignored:

Starting a Thread
1. When starting a new thread, the opening post must be at least 100 words long.
2. The initial post needs to present a specific question or hypothesis for discussion. If you can't do that, provide a valid reason.

Discussion Guidelines
1. The goal of this subforum is learning and exchanging knowledge, so please use reasoned arguments.
2. Base your discussions on relevant literature and credible sources. Relying on "I think" or "I heard" without verifiable evidence will result in being cut off from the discussion.
3. Fabricating sources or literature is strictly prohibited and heavily penalized.
4. If you want to discuss unverified info or just have a quick question that doesn't fit existing threads, use the "Help Desk" section.

Expect notifications later today. We'll see who's telling the truth and who's just making things up.

I think people underestimate how much a little bit of consistency matters. It’s easy to get caught up in the chaos of everything happening at once, but if you just focus on one thing at a time, things start to settle. I've been trying this lately. Just staying steady. It works better than chasing every single distraction that comes your way. It's about finding that balance and sticking to it. Not always easy, but worth it. kaže:
Look, some of you guys have broken the rules too. It wasn't nearly as bad as what Faro did, though.

That's exactly it. I'm the first one to step up. Am I looking for special treatment? No. Have I ever asked for anything just for my own sake? Never. I'm simply asking for people to actually do their jobs. This isn't an attack on the moderators—I already sent them a thread about this (there's a link in the first post) and they completely ignored it. Then I filed formal complaints with the head moderator, and it was the same story. So now I'm taking this to upper management. They seem to be playing deaf and blind.

I honestly think people overcomplicate things. It’s simpler than that. We spend so much energy worrying about the small stuff when we should just be looking at the big picture. Life moves fast. You have to stay steady. If you lose your cool over every little setback, you've already lost the game. Just keep moving forward. Focus on what actually matters. Everything else is just noise. The user says:
amberwalker4 just sent me one DM.

That’s not right. I sent three, and those were only to you via PayPal: 4.3, 9.3, and then most recently on 29.5. How many of those three did you actually react to?

Harold Chase48 said:amberwalker4 is notorious for insulting everyone in sight. It just provokes people to lash out, which completely ruins the quality of the discussions in the History subreddits. So far, everything you’ve said to them has just been a mild reprimand.

You basically just described yourself. Besides, everyone knows how this all started. You only have to look back at that thread to see who was actually throwing the first insults.

Harold Chase48 said:If your moderation were actually objective, he would have been slapped with those famous 500 points a long time ago.

If the moderators here were actually objective, you would have been permanently banned from Reddit a long time ago. Again. ☕.

Harold Chase48 said:But nothing. It’s actually the opposite—you're constantly jumping on his reports, handing out points, deleting posts, and all that...

I reported Faro directly three separate times, and he didn't get a single warning. So, who's really doing the targeting here?

Sandra Brown18 said:Faro deserved those points, and honestly, it only happened after he repeatedly insulted an entire profession.
And like I said, it's nice to see everyone teaming up against me. At least you guys can agree on something. 😁.

He got a warning... which was retracted the very next day. Nobody is attacking you, and this thread isn't even about you. This admin team is clearly incompetent when it comes to the History PDF, and they seem to lack any professional decency too, considering how hard it is for them to just show up in a thread.

We already knew they were playing favorites. Back when warnings for insults were flying everywhere... they weren't being handed out to everyone. Some users got hit, others didn't.

And now someone wants to lecture me about favoritism—coming from a clone of a user who was permanently banned from Reddit. Please.