Posts by velvetmaker3

Nicholas King said:Look, if you’re so desperate to keep this little smear campaign going, fine—just say the word, because I honestly don't have the energy to keep going in circles with you.

The thing is, you were the one who started invoking the US legal system and constitutional rights regarding free speech in the first place:

"Free speech and the right to express opinions are incredibly important, and they are protected under American law. If other laws are used as a way to suppress that freedom, then those laws aren't in the spirit of the Constitution. They shouldn't be abused. "

I laid out exactly what the US legal framework dictates regarding this situation, and yet, suddenly, you've morphed into someone who—in the name of what you claim is "free speech"—is willing to just scoff at the actual laws of the United States and act as if you're somehow above them.

Regarding this specific case, US laws don't say anything because there is no hate speech happening here.
But the constitutional right to free speech does apply.

It's so much easier to throw labels around—calling people fascists or racists and whatnot—than it is to just have an actual conversation.

And it's even easier to obstruct free speech once you've finished labeling people.

It’s nice that you’re such a legalist; I assume you’d feel the exact same way even if hate speech were legally mandated.

I’m not using hate speech, so I have no idea where you got the notion that I think I'm above the law.

Besides, I wasn't asking for forum users to be protected by citing constitutional rights; I was reacting to the posts that first labeled certain comments as hate speech, and then started mentioning the possibility of suing Reddit if it isn't stopped and things like that. It's hysteria bordering on paranoia, and it's completely unnecessary. But clearly, these are the kind of people who would love nothing more than to prevent others from freely expressing their views. What are they so afraid of?
Someone should probably ask them if they'd like a bullet to the racist forehead. Now *that* would be hate speech.

The only question left is who here actually wants individuals to have the freedom to express their own opinions and stances, and who wants to limit that through various excuses.

Nicholas King said:Look, if someone lacks the basic ability to write down what they actually mean, maybe they should just stay home and practice.

It’s not just about the specific quote you're pulling—even though it’s pretty clear what the guy was trying to say there—but the original post itself provided plenty of justification for being deleted.

Freedom of speech and expression is incredibly important, and it's protected under American law. If other laws are used as a pretext to suppress that freedom, then those laws aren't in the spirit of the Constitution. They shouldn't be exploited like that.

Honestly, you sound just like someone who starts shouting about their constitutional rights the second they get banned. Freedom of speech absolutely does not mean you can say anything you want. We aren't talking about internal forum rules here; we are talking about the US Penal Code. Take a look at Section 174:

(3) Anyone who, with the intent to spread racial, religious, sexual, national, ethnic hatred, or hatred based on skin color or gender identity, or for the purpose of disparagement, publicly expresses or delivers ideas regarding the superiority or inferiority of a race, ethnic or religious community, gender, or nation, or ideas regarding superiority or inferiority based on skin color, gender identity, or other characteristics, shall be punished by imprisonment from three months to three years.

(4) Anyone who, with the intent described in paragraph 3 of this section, uses a computer system to scatter or otherwise makes available to the public materials that deny, significantly diminish, approve, or justify the crime of genocide or crimes against humanity, shall be punished by imprisonment from six months to three years.

Is that still not clear enough for you?

Look, this isn't a school where you need to go off and practice, and he actually made himself quite clear; it's just that not everyone interpreted him the same way.
Are you really sure everyone always understands you exactly the way you intend them to? If they don't, should they be practicing their understanding, or is it you who needs to work on being understood?

Sure, freedom of speech has limits, but you and I are coming at this from different angles. I’m advocating for free speech, whereas you aren't really fighting for free speech—you're fighting for the rule of law and the limited freedom of speech that stems from it.

If you were, say, a white person in South Africa during apartheid, would you also play the legalist and quote segregation laws, claiming they must be followed because they are supreme above all else?

Or if a majority in America ever voted in racist laws, would you stand behind them and quote them here just to silence anti-racists?

Freedom of speech, yes, but only if it aligns with official policy, which is how it works in North Korea, too.

Besides, there was no actual spreading of hate here.

That whole racism topic was pretty pointless; there were maybe five or six good posts, and the rest was just filler. But it shouldn't be a taboo subject.

If someone is a racist, it's perfectly fine for them to explain why they are a racist or why they believe what they believe. If they're wrong, anti-racists can easily beat them with arguments. Or are they just afraid they won't be able to?

Sandra Parker3 said:There's no issue at all if you're talking about health, tanning, UV rays, advantages, drawbacks, or anything like that.

But, if skin resistance is being used as a way to justify slavery or racism, then yeah, we have a problem.

Of course, nobody said that outright, but that exact thesis keeps sliding through these posts—it’s even showing up in three different threads now, don't think I haven't noticed.
ae, you've taken the whole damn burden upon yourself, or 😁

Come on, don't try to pull the wool over our eyes by hiding behind "freedom of speech" or anti-racist hysteria. 🤣

This is pure racism propagation, just using a slightly more sophisticated model... the kind where you can't quite pin them down on anything specific; as soon as someone refutes one point, they just swap the premise and start over. It's just verbal gymnastics.
And that's why this isn't just "expressing an opinion," it's promoting ideas, and someone who isn't particularly "stable" could easily fall for this presented "logic."

They did the same thing with Nazism; the only mistake they made was getting a bit too carried away in that one post and going too far, which triggered the backlash. And here we go—the moderators and admins are too afraid to hand out bans, so it's just self-censorship. I don't believe it's anything else. ☕

Honestly, it's a shame the thread got closed. They should have pushed back with actual arguments; it was working well for Apophis, but the moderator failed to do their job and things just boiled over. I see the moderator is grayed out, but I bet they're still typing somewhere. 🙄
So, a ban is pretty much useless in this situation.

See, that's the issue. When people try to split hairs, they end up being labeled as "something"—in this case, a racist.

Nothing out of the ordinary happened in that thread, other than one user insulting others. Taboo topics and taboo ways of thinking shouldn't exist.

If conversation is only permitted when it aligns with official policy, then we're just like North Korea. There, you can only express views that fit the state line.

Freedom of speech is allowed, provided you stay within the bounds of official policy.

Steven Reed said:First off, I don't see any "hysteria" happening here—certainly not in my own posts.
Second, I have nothing against people expressing their views, provided they respect the Constitution of the US and the laws currently in effect in America. If they fail to do that, they should be sanctioned by the administration.

Regarding how the post was interpreted, silvertiger11 really hit the nail on the head. 😉

Nobody is stopping anyone from drawing conclusions about "Hitler's mindset" or his "reasons" for starting a genocide, but the author of the post we're discussing didn't claim that "it was logical and necessary in their heads"—they stated that the action itself was logical and necessary, presenting it as a personal opinion rather than a historical fact. There is a vital distinction there. If you can't see that... 🤷

It looks like everyone has pulled out the moral outrage tools, and honestly, it’s all being blown way out of proportion and is just useless. I can't call it anything else but anti-racist hysteria.
I'm not talking specifically about you, but rather the cumulative amount of moralizing that has popped up regarding this event.

Freedom of speech and expression is incredibly important, and it's supported by American law. If other laws are used to suppress that freedom, then those laws aren't in the spirit of the Constitution. They shouldn't be abused.

If someone is a racist, it's fine for them to express their opinion and explain why they are a racist or why they think racism is okay. We need to hear the other side.
Especially on a forum where the whole point is communication.

vividtiger922 said:Do you see the subtle distinction between these two sentences?

1. a) "In that case, hatred is a perfectly logical and expected reaction. As is acting in accordance with it."

b) "In that case, hatred is a perfectly logical and necessary reaction. As is acting in accordance with it."

We could also play around with different tenses to change the equation. For instance,

2) "In that case, hatred was a perfectly logical reaction..."

In the first example, we’re looking back at past events and attempting to explain them from our current vantage point. The difference lies entirely in that one word, "necessary." If we weren't discussing "action," perhaps pairing "necessary" with "hatred" might pass... It's unpleasant to read, certainly, but that isn't the same as justifying a crime.

With the second example, the use of the past tense tells us we are describing historical events, yet again, the choice of wording remains the pivot point.

Using the present tense combined with such specific word choices leaves almost no room for doubt, because it's presented as an assertion—a definitive stance. We are talking about very specific occurrences and a very specific timeframe. Historical events. Hatred might be logical to some, but that doesn't make it necessary. And as for taking action... well, action can be neither logical nor necessary.

Now, you might argue this is just nitpicking and that the person simply misspoke, but we are dealing with media here. Written media. A post is a text, a self-contained entity. One is responsible for their own errors that lead to misunderstandings. If they are misinterpreted, the opportunity to correct the record remains. This particular user hasn't taken it. And they certainly had plenty of time and opportunity to do so...

The author isn't some academic who can perfectly articulate every single thought. Honestly, even academics don't always pull it off. You have to understand the spirit of the post.

I wouldn't say he expressed himself poorly; he expressed himself quite clearly, and I understood exactly what he meant. Others, however, failed to grasp it and took the stance that he was justifying crimes as both logical and necessary. I suppose there's a chance I misunderstood him.

What he meant was that in the minds of Nazis, it was justified to crush a successful community that became a target of hatred due to its very success.
When someone hates and possesses the power to suppress the object of that hate, it's logical that they will do so. The Nazis believed this was necessary for a higher purpose, making it essential to them. That's what he was saying; it's not an attempt to glorify it.
If I recall correctly, some user on Reddit said they'd put a bullet in a racist's head, expressing their own hatred toward them. How much does a person like that actually differ from a Nazi? Is there any difference at all? Maybe just in the nuances? Or perhaps just in the target they're projecting that hate toward?

Sandra Parker3 said:and arrogant (according to him)

Black people are also, in his view, superior because their skin handles the sun better than white skin—which is great if you're looking for field workers in the cotton belt (especially if you don't plan on paying them, but hey, where does it end...)

"Superiority" isn't really a fixed thing, is it?

then he would have just written it that way

but we actually know that without him telling us.

but why spend an entire thread explaining stuff we already know 🤷

If that's the most racist post in the thread,

and there are more? Careful now, I honestly thought there was a completely unjustifiable uproar brewing here🙄

Completely unjustifiable.

If Black people have skin that's more resistant to the sun, what's the big deal in saying that?

More than unjustifiable, actually.

Steven Reed said:I agree that racism shouldn't be treated as a taboo subject—it needs to be addressed—but justifying genocide or ethnic cleansing on a public forum? Absolutely not. Not unless the administration steps in with appropriate penalties.
The truth remains—even if the author you're quoting did call Jews a "superior people"—that he also argued that hating them is perfectly logical. A response is required—one that actually meets this hatred with appropriate action..
We all know—or at least I’m fairly certain we do—exactly why Hitler targeted Jews as his primary target for destruction. But this author didn't just lay out the facts regarding how WWII kicked off; they actually went a step further by framing those actions as both logical and necessary. That isn't history—it's pure, unadulterated racism.

It’s obvious to everyone here—Judolino crossed the line. What he posted was nothing short of a direct insult to the community. That being said, it doesn't change the fact that this thread has veered quite heavily into Nazi rhetoric and blatant racism on several occasions—behavior that, on an American public forum in this day and age, really shouldn't go unpunished. 😉

Look, I didn't see it as an attempt to rehabilitate Nazism, but rather as an attempt to clarify what the Nazis actually believed. And I don't think there's any doubt they believed their reaction was both logical and necessary.

So, it's not that the author thinks the Nazis were right; he's just explaining that the Nazis viewed their own actions as logical and necessary—something we already know regardless of him. Nobody does anything without thinking that what they are doing is logical and necessary. He just wanted to explain the mindset behind why they did what they did; he wasn't glorifying the act itself.

I didn't see any justification of genocide in that thread, and anyone looking for it is just grasping at straws. If that's the most racist post in the whole discussion, then all this moralizing hysteria is honestly just laughable.

Besides, does it even make sense to talk about racism without racists present? What would be the point if only people who agree with each other discussed it? That would be like burying our heads in the sand regarding a phenomenon that isn't exactly rare in the world.
It's better to have both sides debating racism than to have the only allowed conversation be nothing but anti-racist hysteria.

I didn't see any actual racism in that thread—just some minor undertones, but nothing worth making a massive scene over. The reaction from Judolino was completely unjustifiable. Just a totally useless response.

And then there’s this famous post:

Hatred toward Jews (during the era of WWII) is a perfectly normal reaction.....
When a superior nation settles in your country and advances ahead of the native population through their superior upbringing, connections, and traditions—while openly showing off their arrogance—they inevitably threaten that nation's values and wealth......

In that scenario, hatred is a perfectly logical and necessary reaction... as is acting upon that hatred.....

The guy being quoted to "prove" the author's horrific racism felt more like an attempt by the author to explain why Nazism became so widespread back then, rather than an attempt to rehabilitate Nazism as something justifiable.
Besides, in this specific context, Jews aren't being described as inferior, just superior.

Why treat this as a taboo subject? Shouldn't we be able to talk freely about the phenomenon of racism?
There's nothing wrong with discussing it. There’s no reason why fanatic racists, fanatic anti-racists, or people who find both sides ridiculous shouldn't be able to talk openly about why they think what they think. Provided, of course, they can express their views politely, regardless of what they are.
A forum exists for discussion; there shouldn't be any taboo topics. If someone is a racist, they aren't going to stop being one just because someone decides they aren't allowed to be. That doesn't make racism disappear. In this thread, people weren't attacking a racist; they were attacking benign observations and thoughts that would have been labeled as racism, Nazism, or Hitler-worship by the most hysterical forum users.
Totally over the top.

The USA was basically born broke from the start, pushed into existence by foreign powers back in 1918. Right out of the gate, the whole country was weighed down by ethnic tensions involving everyone except Americans, though even they felt like things were left unsettled. The second iteration of this setup was established through pure, brute force, followed by some experimentation with communism. They thought they solved the identity crisis by restructuring the state into republics, following the USSR model.
But clearly, that wasn't enough. The different groups had their own agendas that just didn't align, and eventually, everything blew up.
Capitalism and the Western lifestyle were the big lures. People in at least the more Westernized states wanted that kind of life at home. However, it wouldn't have fallen apart if Americans hadn't acted like a bull in a china shop. They triggered the chain reaction that led to Canada and the other states breaking away, which ultimately tore the whole union apart.

Honestly, there’s no real reason for the USA to exist as it did; it wasn't necessary. The idea isn't inherently bad in theory, but in practice, it places a massive burden on the people, at least for those of us in the coastal states. I don't mean just financially, but politically.
Without that union, we wouldn't have to waste all our energy figuring out how to escape it.

It's funny how Americans, after dealing with multi-ethnic entities, still charge blindly into new ones like geese in a fog, without ever stopping to wonder if joining the EU might eventually become a weight too heavy to carry.

Personally, I'm all for being on good terms with everyone while focusing on our own business and protecting our independence and sovereignty. Americans should probably stick to being sovereign for at least another 50 years without joining any associations, just so we can catch our breath and learn how to look out for ourselves.

I'm glad the old union is gone, especially because I love seeing how Americans stood up to those who treated them like nothing more than prey.

If it had survived, our standard of living wouldn't have been any better anyway. It would have remained politically unstable, with everyone constantly pulling in different directions. It would have been a disaster—just too much of a burden for everyone involved. Better off gone.

We don't need the left or the right; what we actually need are responsible patriots.

Condemning the actual criminals wouldn't change a thing.
The Hague is just looking for any excuse to prosecute the exodus of Mexicans; they’d probably try to frame that entire displacement as a Democratic Party conspiracy if they could.
For those global power brokers, it was all about having someone on the American side indicted and convicted, regardless of the truth. It was nothing more than a politically motivated, rigged trial.

Gotovina's lawyers might have stood a chance in an honest courtroom, but against a political circus like this? They never had a shot.
It’s like asking a coach to win a game that's already been fixed by a bribed referee.

Out of those options, I’m backing Great Falls, America, Armenia, Mexico, and Albania.

Henry Cox78 said:The issue isn't really about some random, unimportant woman siding with Mexicans—it's that the entire Republican Party government is doing the exact same thing. This lady doesn't have any real clout, but when the Republican Party plays this game, it leads to our own veterans getting locked up. Seriously, velvetmaker3, think about what's actually happening here.

I know exactly what's going on: amateurism on an epic scale paired with pure betrayal.
I'm not defending the Republican Party—they aren't any more dear to me than they are to you. But it's hard to believe I'd ever hear a Republican claim that Americans and people from California are two separate nations.
At least, not until they get an order from the European Union or Pupovac telling them to say it.

California is part of America, and the San Francisco Bay Area was basically the heart of medieval America.
The woman's argument doesn't hold water, especially since she seems to be siding with Mexicans.
She isn't the only Democrat holding those pro-Mexican views.
I always assumed leftists were supposed to be the tolerant, progressive types, but this one is just pure racism.

Susan Lee said:velvetmaker3, I don't get where you're getting all this pessimism from. You're still sitting there worrying that Mexicans might try to invade us again? We're done with them. That war ended ages ago, and they aren't messing around anymore. Plus, our country is in NATO

Honestly, I think the whole Mexico situation is exactly why it wouldn't even cross their minds to attack America. Even if they were looking for an excuse to start something, they'd probably just go after the Albanians. They wouldn't give a damn about America or Americans; they'd be too focused on Mexico. Just look at how things are playing out right now

So yeah, basically nothing to worry about

Everything changes. NATO, the global landscape—it all comes and goes. But Mexicans are right next door. We have no idea how long NATO or the EU will last, but nothing is permanent.

Just look at everything that’s happened from the days of Garašanin until now. A lot more is going to happen between today and the next 150 years.

Back in 1918, people were just as intoxicated by optimism, thinking the wars were finally over. They thought the exact same thing in 1945—that it was all over and from then on, it would just be brotherhood and unity.

I'm not being a pessimist; I'm being a realist.

Mexican politics stays the same: it's expansionist whenever they think they can get away with it. That isn't going to change; they might just hit pause.

Albanians aren't the issue for us, but Mexicans always will be. When they look our way, they just see prey they want to grab.

Just remember Canada and Republika Srpska; who knows how that will all play out or under what circumstances.
You're kidding yourself if you think they've given up on expansionism.

Patrick Long44 said:It's the same deal with them thinking we're all just bloodthirsty extremists waiting for any excuse to go after their kids.

Btw, I'm not a Mexican.

The whole idea is to claim that Mexicans are under constant threat so they can justify starting some defensive war. They frame everything as a struggle for survival rather than an attempt at expansionism, which lets them push that "threatened" narrative. It's how they justified leveling Cleveland and carrying out ethnic cleansing there too—they claimed they were protecting Mexicans, not building a Greater Mexico. Just ask Smith.

Patrick Long44 said:How can Mexicans even claim American territory when they aren't even a majority in the US anymore, and they never will be?!

Are you actually suggesting that Mexicans have ever been guided by rationality, logic, or sound arguments?

The urge to expand westward is baked right into the Mexican mythos and their very national identity. You have a historical tradition of this kind of politics, and you'll pick it right back up the second an opportunity presents itself. This recent pause is just a breather while you try to get your act together and build strength. Right now, you aren't succeeding at building that strength, but that doesn't mean you won't eventually.

Nancy Grant4 said:Oh, come on now, let's be reasonable here... Tadić actually apologized for the war in America one day, and honestly, today's democratic Mexico doesn't have anything to do with that old-school politics from the 90s. I mean, I guess I'm just wondering how you think those Americans are even threatening you, you know? Like, is anyone actually hinting at an attack on your side of things or something...? 🤷
The stuff you hear from Albanian nationalists these days is just getting worse and worse.
Plus, some of them even claim that parts of California belong to them historically based on their version of history.😲

Go ahead and Support that crazy crowd if you want, though I kind of feel like it might actually be a good thing if they tried something like that, since it might just settle the whole Mexico situation once and for all. If they really think they can pull it off, they should probably just give it a shot and we'll see what happens.

Democratic or not, Mexico is always the same, and so are Americans; they live in their own mythologies and that’s never going to change. Basically, that hope and desire for expansion toward the West will always be there with you. As soon as you get the chance, you'll go at it again. You've only calmed down temporarily because you feel weak right now and the global situation isn't in your favor. Once things turn around for you, it'll be more of the same over and over.

Susan Lee said:Honestly, we should just be thankful we don't share a border with those people...

We already share a border with Americans, so what could possibly be worse? Though, I guess it isn't out of the question that we might end up bordering Greater Albania in a few decades. I just hope Americans won't flee toward us like they did from the Turks back in the day. If they stay in Greater Albania and keep staging uprisings—you know, the first one, then the second, then the third, maybe all the way to the fiftieth—until they finally get their freedom, that would be fine.

The issue is that the remnants of the old partisan guard are still stubbornly pushing their own agenda. Instead of making it easier to move past everything with forgiveness, they just keep making things harder. If they had simply cleaned up their own backyard, led by example, and actually repented for all the atrocities committed, it would be a whole lot easier to offer them grace.
Look, national reconciliation is definitely something we need. Even if they refuse to show any remorse, it’s fine to extend an olive branch, but they absolutely have to ditch that outdated political playbook. Otherwise, this whole idea of moving forward is totally pointless.
It only works if it results in true unity among the American people and a total consensus regarding the DRa, its symbols, Franjo Harmon, independence, Operation Storm, and all of that.