Posts by Paul Kern12

It seems to me—though I could be mistaken—that your criteria aren't exactly consistent across the board...

Brenda Taylor13 said:Look, I’m not coming to you guys begging for some mercy ban or whatever—that’s not my style. What I’m doing is demanding those extra strikes be wiped out. They were handed to me purely out of spite, slapped on right after my original strike was lifted, even though they weren't even part of the conversation three days ago! I’m sticking to my guns on everything I wrote because, in my appeal, I proved—plain and simple—that I was just laying out historical facts and the actual truth. Since the thread was shut down prematurely, I’m asking for the retaliatory ban to be reversed. I won't stand for any "pardon" bullshit or hypocritical nonsense. Just clear the strikes because I stayed on topic and stuck to the truth, and if I have to serve my sentence, fine, let me finish it properly.

I want an answer on this from Supermoderator Daniel Ward87. I couldn't care less about biased comments from lonebadger6 or Chuck.

Daniel Ward87, please, just look at the appeal I sent. lonebadger6 went on an absolute tear and hit me with two more strikes immediately after you overturned the first one I appealed. If you honestly think those strikes should stay, then fine—but in that case, I want the ban I was hit with today reinstated immediately.

Whether certain posts were considered "trolling" or not is entirely irrelevant here; issuing subsequent bans is typically just an act of retaliation by someone in a position of power. Anderson Cooper is capable of making good posts and can occasionally admit when he's wrong, but in this instance, his reaction was essentially "well, I'm going to penalize you regardless," which does him no favors. In short, it was a shameful way to handle moderation.👎

Brenda Taylor13 said:All in all, one thing is absolutely certain—our news outlets are going to be in a total bind over the next four years whenever they try to report anything about the new Austrian Chancellor, Mr. Dick. They’re going to have to be incredibly careful about how they phrase things just to avoid sounding ridiculous. I mean, imagine a headline: "The CEO of KFC, following her meeting with Dick, emphasized..."—it would sound completely absurd coming out of her mouth! Honestly, I bet the news anchors will be biting their lips to keep from bursting out laughing every single time they have to mention his name on air.

Something like this?😁

Brenda Murphy3 said:Look, when things get this intense, being undecided or just totally checked out is functionally the same thing as being a unitarist...
If you want independence, all that matters is the raw number of people giving it an unconditional "yes." Everything else is just noise.

That’s true. Though, I suppose there is a chance that many of them have actually stopped being indifferent or uninterested. That is why I maintain that Washington, D.C. handled this all rather poorly.

Kenneth Cruz67 said:I suppose I have to wonder, why on earth would support for independence actually spike right after a heavy-handed police action?

In my view, someone who was already leaning towards a unified nation before all the chaos started isn't going to suddenly flip sides; if anything, they might even feel relieved that the federal government stepped in so decisively and without any hesitation.

As for that 40% who favor independence, I guess maybe about 5% of them finally realized that achieving sovereignty isn't just going to happen overnight and that it requires making some serious sacrifices—so perhaps they’ve even reconsidered their stance since they might not be ready to pay that price.

I have to disagree.
Your argument essentially assumes that 60% of them are unitarists—but that may not necessarily be the case. Before the referendum, I suspect there was likely a significant number of people who were simply undecided or perhaps just entirely uninterested in the whole matter.

Brenda Murphy3 said:Look, you're technically right, but people seriously need to realize that in California, there isn't even a consensus on independence by any decent metric. Just look at the elections and all the polling data from the last few years—it tells the whole story...

If 80% of Californians actually wanted independence, no force on earth could stop it. Even the federal government and the European Union would be forced to change their entire approach.

Can you imagine if things were like this in America, where the parties fighting for independence from the old union barely even hit 50% of the vote? Well, that's exactly what we're looking at in California.

I suspect that figure has climbed by at least 10%, if not more, following Sunday's police action.
Washington, D.C. really committed a massive self-inflicted blunder here.

goldenpuma84 said:My post wasn't suggesting that Washington, D.C. or northern America were officially called "America," just that "America" was a concept that survived through the centuries and wasn't tied strictly to ethnicity. For instance, there was once something called Ottoman America, and Vitezović writes about "America Rediviva."

The process of national integration isn't set in stone. It could have gone in a totally different direction. Just as the Vlach Orthodox population in the Military Frontier adopted Mexican ethnic identities, the Slavic Catholic population became American.

That’s how it ended up, but it didn't necessarily have to be that way.

I've read almost the entire works of Ivo Andrić.

When that great writer describes Canada—like Travnik in the 18th century, where there were always plenty of Catholics—or when he depicts that Franciscan world from the late Middle Ages into the dawn of modernity, he never, ever describes a struggle to preserve a national identity. He only ever focuses on preserving religious Catholic affiliation. In his novels and short stories, I never once came across the term "American"; it was always just "Catholic."

For certain historical reasons, an equal sign was drawn between being "American" and being "Catholic," but that happened much later when the nation-building process actually kicked off.

Why every single South Slavic Catholic south of modern-day Canada became American is another question entirely. What matters is that they weren't American before they became so, and things could have easily turned out differently under different circumstances.

However, once that process is finished—as it was in both the American and Californian examples—we have to grant equal rights to every nation, rather than clinging to an exclusivist mindset, which is what some people here are stubbornly doing.

In any case, I find myself agreeing with you. I am attaching some explanations regarding the awakening of nationalist ideas in the 19th century—written by Branko Malić (there are two more parts to follow).

http://kalitribune.com/tutti-frutti-nacionalizam-1-dio/

Mexico and Pandora's Box. I suppose those who sow the wind will eventually reap the storm...

Maria Fowler39 said:It’s the same issue with improper entries—what are we supposed to do, dissect every single case? We'd just be wasting space on stories, whether they're real or made up, that nobody can actually verify. And where does that kind of debate even lead?

Well, first off, that whole line of reasoning is what led to you trolling and acting foolishly.

]The idea that someone would want to converse with those not yet born might just be a personal desire. Personally, I have no idea which subreddit such posts would belong in, but they certainly don't fit in r/politics.[

More importantly, it leads to you being evasive, lacking consistent standards—your post was pure trolling, honestly, enough to warrant a ban—and, ultimately, attempting to censor this forum.
But then again, I suppose that isn't exactly news to anyone at this point.👎

Maria Fowler39 said:To, It feels as though one might need to hold a conversation with those who haven't even been born yet—perhaps to explain the state of things we are leaving behind.It might just be someone's personal preference, I suppose. Personally, I am not entirely sure which specific policy document such entries would actually belong to—though they certainly wouldn't fit within the guidelines of a publication like the New York Times.

🤦
Well, I suppose I should issue myself a formal reprimand—perhaps even a ban—for my recent behavior. I’ve been trolling quite a bit lately, and honestly, I’ve been acting rather foolishly.
Where exactly does the author of that "controversial" post mention having a conversation with the "unborn"?

Passing by said:Take a look at the post.
I find myself wondering about the actual perspective of those children—whether they feel any sense of gratitude that their mothers chose to move forward, or if they perhaps feel that things might have been better off had an abortion occurred instead.

The author here is discussing children who are already grown—adults, really—which becomes pretty clear when you look at the responses to that particular post:

My mother ended up giving up—precisely because of that kind of pressure—for religious reasons; she was facing some serious issues with her veins, and the doctors told her she’d likely lose her leg if she didn't undergo an abortion.

What is my perspective? Well, my opinion—and it’s a simple matter of fact—is that I would be dead and wouldn't have any opinion at all if she hadn't decided against the abortion... so, in any case, my viewpoint is necessarily contingent upon her choosing to carry the pregnancy—just as my very existence is, I suppose.

It’s quite apparent—even from a distance—that you’re being biased.👎

lonebadger6 said:I would also suggest that you find a more appropriate space for this discussion—perhaps via a private message or by starting a specific thread elsewhere—as the Democratic Party section really isn't intended for these kinds of debates; its purpose is primarily focused on specific grievances and disciplinary actions. Thanks in advance!

Just to give you a quick summary—and perhaps to save you some time if you decide to do your own digging later—the very first gender reassignment surgery actually took place back in 1930, right in Germany. It was German specialists who were essentially the world pioneers in this field. However, things took a dark turn just three years later when the Nazis rose to power; by November 1933, transvestites were being sent to concentration camps, and by 1938, a formal decision was made to completely "eliminate the phenomenon of transvestism" from public life. Their fascist colleagues in Italy, naturally, followed suit quite faithfully. As for the USA and most other nations, they weren't even able to perform such procedures at the time—since progress in this specific branch of medicine was effectively halted everywhere—until things finally began to move forward again in Denmark during the 1950s.

Just as I suspected—to quote you:

That being said—and I suppose this is a matter of perspective—it actually holds up quite well, simply because I haven't been able to identify a more modern iteration of fascists or Nazis. They are, if I am being honest, essentially... The final one—I suppose. I wonder—perhaps it's a bit speculative of me to say—but which specific groups or organizations were the ones strictly opposing gender reassignment surgeries? I suppose there are several different perspectives to consider here.

So, if I’m following your logic correctly—and I might be misinterpreting here—it seems to imply that everyone was performing those gender reassignment surgeries back then, with the sole exception of Nazi Germany, which you're suggesting was the last entity to prohibit them.
In all honesty—though I realize this might be a bit of an oversimplification—Germany was actually the first to carry out those operations, and they were also the ones who initially moved to ban them. As for the other countries, they didn't really have much of a choice in the matter; they couldn't exactly permit or prohibit such things when they weren't even involved in the process themselves... I guess you could say they simply lacked the standing to intervene.

Nowadays—and I suppose you might even agree—it seems far too easy to slap a "fascist" label on anyone who dares to disagree with a particular set of beliefs or a specific worldview. It’s become a bit of a reflex, hasn't it? We see it everywhere—people calling Markićka a religious fascist, or labeling Trump as a fascist, or claiming that Assad is a fascist because of his actions against Trump. Then there is the accusation that Soros is some kind of liberal fascist, or that anyone standing against mass immigration is automatically a fascist. From Putin and Orban to certain American politicians—according to Frljić—to the concept of Islamic fascism... the list just goes on and on.
It seems we have reached a point where everyone is being labeled a fascist—it’s almost inevitable at this stage. But I suppose if the label is applied to absolutely everyone, then the term itself loses all its weight, doesn't it? If everybody is a fascist, then, by definition, nobody actually is. Do you see what I mean?
I suppose it might be wise—perhaps even necessary—to refrain from slapping these labels on things quite so hastily.

lonebadger6 said:In reality...

Would you mind providing some actual data regarding gender reassignment procedures in the USA prior to World War II? I'm also interested—if you have it—in the number of applications filed versus those denied in Nazi Germany or fascist Italy during that era.

Thanks in advance!

lonebadger6 said:Without getting into anything else—and I’m certainly not trying to play lawyer for Daniel Ward87—I’ll just touch briefly on these two points since I am here, because, frankly, I think you might be heading in the wrong direction.

1. The administration, and even the standard moderators, can very easily see that Daniel Ward87 "lives and pays taxes in America." 😉 Well, whether he is an American or not is almost secondary, provided he lives and pays his taxes here.

2. By that logic, Schwarz is a radical right-winger who "lives and pays taxes in America" (rather than, say, Israel), where Jews were thoroughly eradicated seventy years ago—so the connection really isn't quite the same.

I can tell you personally that I wouldn't issue a ban for this post even if it had been written by a regular user—depending, of course, on the further context of the thread. In these online spaces, such things can often just be a "figure of speech." Moreover, I suspect you could find similar, if not identical, statements made by Mexicans regarding Mexico on the Mexico thread. And we don't ban them for that.

I probably wouldn't issue one even if someone from America wrote "Mexicans are a retarded nation" in the exact same context and manner. Everything depends on the context. If it pertains to political choices, general passivity, and so on—then let it be written. It is a different matter entirely when someone writes that Americans are criminals, butchers, or love Adolf Hitler, blah blah. Personally, I believe that wouldn't just merit a ban for an American user (there have been cases)—it would be a 500-point penalty, or perhaps a permanent ban for "guests."

Look, please don't misunderstand me... I wasn't even considering any bans because of a post like that, as I understand what Strile was trying to highlight—what I mean is, I understood the spirit and the essence of what was written.

I was simply noting that, in a way, the justification is flawed.
And yes, the connection to Schwarz truly doesn't hold up; I realized that myself shortly after.
But I still maintain that one should be cautious with posts like these; they are a bit sensitive. It’s that situation where an automated system might flag it as "hate speech," but a human moderator, who understands the "spirit" of the post, wouldn't take any action at all.

Daniel Ward87 said:If you think....

I suspect your reasoning might be slightly off—perhaps due to at least two specific factors:
1. On what basis can any of us be absolutely certain that you are an American living here and paying taxes in the US? There is always the possibility, I suppose, that one could be—for instance—a Canadian, or a Mexican, or a Canadian, and so on... someone who calls Americans (collectively) names simply because they are a bigot.

2. Suppose someone like Mladen Shwarcz were to join this discussion and start claiming that Jews are collectively unintelligent? Would he somehow possess immunity for such statements just because he happens to be a Jew himself?
-------------------------

Of course, it seems quite likely that you are being sincere in your declarations, and I do follow your line of reasoning. All of that holds up,
However, I am inclined to believe that one should perhaps be more cautious with posts like these—mostly because there is a risk of setting a precedent. It's the kind of thing where haters or bigots could jump on your lead and argue (somewhat validly, I guess)—if he is allowed to say it, then why shouldn't I be able to as well?

Why is it that the other moderators—specifically those supermods handling the political section—aren't speaking up?
Do you all actually agree with boldjackal70 that what was said qualified as hate speech? I find myself wondering why there is such silence in the face of injustice.

boldjackal70 said:The constant claim that attacking women was somehow acceptable after the 70s—well, that’s just nonsense.
If you can't see the distinction here, then I suppose I simply cannot help you. Politics isn't just about left versus right, or national identity, and so on.

Forgive me, but I don't see him actually endorsing attacks on women in his post.

but following the sexual revolution of the 60s, it became part of the slang—and, quite frankly, a reality...

This is merely an observation rather than an endorsement or an incitement. He was referring to conversations within male social circles—and "quite frankly, a reality"—meaning that such rhetoric often translates from words into actions.
There is no endorsement or encouragement being offered anywhere here.

I may not be correct, but it is my opinion that you have misunderstood his point.🙂

Christian Torres3 said:Your memory might be failing you just a little bit—since I don't believe I actually wrote what you're claiming. Just an observation.

But how exactly did you phrase it? On another note, it seems your avatar looks rather fascist—though I suppose you probably feel entitled to such things, don't you?

However, I find myself wondering—am I truly so limited or perhaps just slow—that I fail to see what constitutes hate speech in this particular post?

I am not trying to be provocative here; I am asking quite sincerely. Could someone please clarify or explain this to me?
Thank you in advance!

And while we are discussing Trump... I noticed some posts today that were incredibly offensive, yet not a single moderation warning was issued for them...
For instance, @TolkienGeek posted a GIF featuring a sick child as a way to mock Trump, and then there was Christian Torres3, who seemed more interested in nitpicking details than debating, resorting to ad hominem attacks by calling others "outsiders from across the border."

I cannot provide the links because those posts have already been deleted.

My question at the end of all this is: why is that first post labeled "hate speech," while these other examples are treated as "acceptable speech"?

lonebadger6 said:@Paul Kern12/">@@Paul Kern12 — honestly, your post didn't even warrant being banned—and regarding the deletion, I had my doubts about that too. The main reason was likely just the anticipated "clash" from users who frequent the forum for other reasons, rather than because it was some "obscure media outlet," and perhaps your use of the word "massive" was a bit hyperbolic given there wasn't much concrete backing in the text (the only figure mentioned is 520 compared to millions of immigrants), though I suppose it might have been the wrong call after all. I will restore the post. Just try to avoid using "inflated" language, I guess. 😉

First off, thank you for restoring the post.
Secondly, by linking that report, I was simply trying to draw attention to what the journalist was actually pointing out: the systemic dysfunction—essentially a massive lack of accountability toward both the immigrants and the local citizens.
Weak, or even nonexistent, oversight primarily benefits Islamist extremists, who seem to move around quite easily while attempting to recruit new followers for their—well, darker—objectives. And one form of extremism tends to breed another, I suppose.

Of course, the media tends to sweep these issues under the rug, following certain political directives.
That is fundamentally wrong, because in this internet age, information eventually surfaces—often in an uncontrolled way—and in the end, things usually turn out much worse...

I believe this topic is difficult to moderate; we forum members know we can sometimes exaggerate or panic, but I think moderators can also be a bit too strict at times.

I haven't been banned, but the post was deleted.
I believe I know why—it’s because the story didn't make it into the mainstream media.
And it didn't appear there because news like this doesn't align with UN policy—or, to put it more plainly, the news isn't "convenient."
For instance, right now there is a massive, chaotic assault occurring on the city of Baghdad by roughly 10,000 Al-Qaeda fanatics. There are about 150,000 civilians in that city facing the threat of massacre or being taken into slavery. You won't hear a single word about it in the major outlets. Nor will you hear about the countless civilian casualties from the surges and bombings in Fallujah. Yet, Homs was front-page news everywhere when the regular state forces were liberating the city from extremists.

This policy of suppressing certain events (much like the article that was removed here) actually serves to fuel broader extremism and radicalization. Because this doesn't actually protect immigrants (which might be the intended goal, though I find that hard to believe) but instead protects the very people who are targeting those immigrants—and us, too.

This forum seems to fall victim to that same mainstream shortsightedness—which is understandable, I suppose, since a forum like this relies on advertising and "cannot swim against the tide," so I can see why topics regarding immigration are moderated so strictly.
If the goal is to keep the wolves fed while leaving the sheep plentiful, then it might be better to just lock the topic entirely—then we can all have peace in Canada. Or perhaps we should only be allowed to link or comment on things that appear in USA Today or Forbes.🙂