199 posts shown.
Alex Cook said:I was scrolling through this thread this afternoon, right when it hit about a hundred posts. If you're referring to someone else and not this specific post, then I'll just go ahead and throw myself under a bus now...
But if you *are* talking about this post, buckle up, because here we go.
Getting into his character isn't—and shouldn't be—the main point of this thread, but damn, here we are. We could spend all day bickering over semantics—whether it's "trolling," "flaming," or just some kind of snarky sarcasm—but one thing is crystal clear: that post (specifically those first two sentences, let's be real) does absolutely nothing to lower the tension in this thread. And honestly, as the moderator of this damn subforum, it's your job to keep that tension at a minimum. You're failing at it—not because you lack experience, knowledge, or the actual skill, but because you're being extremist and impulsive. Which, funny enough, are basically the exact opposite of the qualities you need in a moderator. 🙂
None of this would even be an issue if you were acting alone. You could have your little Don Quixote moment, charging at nuclear power plants armed with nothing but nothing, and frankly, I wouldn't give a damn. But you aren't alone; there are other people here whose usernames are sitting right next to yours on the front page. Even if you don't care about your own credibility or authority, at least do it for their sake and just stop for a second. 🙂
I’d love to believe I'm not just barking at the moon here, but I've lived too long and spent too much time on this forum to keep swallowing fairy tales from the Brothers Grimm.
Thanks for listening, folks.
I agree, they really didn't need to go there.
feralpilot0 said:So much for transparency—and the supposed end of the old guard's grip on power. Is anyone actually surprised? 👍
I don't see what's so unclear—really?
I’d say this guy would actually be a real leftist if he tackled the actual issues that leftist critique requires—instead of just generalizing everything under this new wave of American quasi-fascism—but my post gets deleted. Is anyone even listening?
Is that actually normal to you?
Generally speaking—what is with this approach to censorship on the Politics forum? One side gets to write whatever they want and troll at will, while everyone else just finds their posts deleted preemptively. Is that how we're playing things now?
Could you all try taking a more objective stance for once—stepping away from the topics you moderate—and actually realize that different viewpoints exist? 😲
Which aren't necessarily criminal just by existing—right?
It feels a bit surreal—if I’ve read the room correctly—to be explaining this to the leftists.
Given that you're calling for their excellencies to convene and settle things behind closed doors—handcuffs included—I have my doubts about whether anyone actually understands what’s going on here.
William Gonzalez3 is going down—all because of the irony of it all. Honestly, aren't you all a bit embarrassed to be publicly slapping down one of your own like this? Unbelievable.
Mod power trips—pretty standard stuff on this forum, and honestly, everywhere else too.
Matthew Castillo5 said:I laid this all out in my deleted post (which you can see, since you're the moderator here). You didn't just use two examples—you used three. And all three were from the eighties, back when throwing people in prison for stuff like that wasn't the norm anymore. Before the era of the old regime ended, you could practically get locked up just for telling a joke or singing an indecent song.
(Hopefully, I won't get penalized just for talking back to you)
There was the Top Surrealists list and Neue Slowenische Kunst, if I recall correctly. That old regime lasted well after the leader died, and I purposely pulled those specific examples to show that the idea of going to prison for satire isn't exactly an absolute rule—plus, it’s a good way to remember what actual satire looks like, unlike the nonsense RB is pulling lately. It doesn't mean people weren't jailed back then, obviously. But honestly, it's irrelevant; talking about that era is about as useful here as talking about Pakistan. Mentioning it doesn't make me some nostalgic sympathizer. Besides, we moved past that whole era so that in a free America, we can actually mock things freely. Among other things.
Matthew Castillo5 said:My post on that thread got nuked too (I'll go into more detail over in the "Appeals Against Cards" thread), and I didn't even mention Bitorajac—let alone any of those rumors floating around about him. I was just responding with actual arguments to that trolling post from the moderator Bradley Sanders4. It wasn't until after that that the lonebadger6 moderator stepped in with a warning not to discuss America, yet Bradley Sanders4's trolling post stayed right where it was. Even The Judgement's post was left up—he responded in basically the same way I did, just much more aggressive—along with Bradley Sanders4's reply to him. There was absolutely zero legitimate reason to delete my post, and to top it all off, I ended up getting a card because I reposted it, genuinely believing there had been some technical glitch and it hadn't actually hit the forum.
What exactly makes my post "trolling"? I see you're making a habit of repeating that. I didn't start any debate; I just responded to the claim that René Bitorajac would end up behind bars by pointing out two famous examples of satire where nobody actually went to jail. Maybe they should have just nuked the whole thread. But even if they did, it still doesn't make my post trolling.
feralpilot0 said:Same question as the title above.
Why can't his behavior be seen as just "going with the flow"—rather than some deep critique of the state of the country? I mean—isn't having differing opinions just what this forum is for?
Apparently, nuance is a foreign concept in American Politics.
Thanks.
Sorry, I didn't quite catch your drift there. Could you clear that up for me?
I think we’ve already explained countless times that when it comes to threads about politicians or people whose actions actually shape policy and the daily lives of citizens, we allow for much harsher criticism and a wider range of discussion. These are the people we elect, the ones we pay, and the ones who impact everyone's life in this country. René Bitorajac doesn't fall into any of those categories. Sure, he’s a public figure, but politically speaking, he’s totally irrelevant. Discussing his entire persona and career is more suited for a gossip thread on the Kokošinjac subforum than in Politics.
Talking about René Bitorajac’s credibility would only be on-topic if it were directly related to what he actually does. For instance, if he were chosen as the face of an anti-violence campaign, then his physical altercation with a security guard would be fair game. But that’s not the case here. It’s not because we’re some obsessed fans of René Bitorajac trying to shield him from scrutiny; it’s because your posts were textbook examples of ad hominem attacks—basically just attempts to discredit a message by attacking the person delivering it. Again, the subject isn't René Bitorajac; it's his song. Whether or not he got into school or college through connections is completely irrelevant, especially since that isn't verified, public info, but just pure gossip. I have to admit, the specific order of your posts is exactly why they were deleted. If you had started with the physical assault, maybe they might have stayed, but since you kicked things off with rumors and then doubled down on this, it was obvious your only goal was to shift the focus from the work to the individual. Since this thread is open so we can discuss the art, I decided to pull the posts that were steering us away from that.
Kolinda isn't the topic, and even if she were, look at the first paragraph. We allow much more leeway when criticizing politicians. (Note: I specifically deleted the particularly nasty comments about her appearance because I find them sexist and out of line.) Let's go back to the parallel here. If someone commented on Lozančić's dismissal by calling her fat, that comment would have been deleted too. The same goes for a comment claiming someone got into high school through nepotism. It's irrelevant and off-topic.
And finally, I have to say I'm pretty disappointed by this whole thread. It’s unusual and frankly unprofessional for a moderator to address another moderator via the PŽK. Especially since you know exactly where to find us.
William Gonzalez3 said:Why were my posts deleted from the thread about René Bitorajac?
It’s because you're a fascist—just like me, really—and there's just no talking to people like us; they just delete everything instead.
Formally speaking, I suppose the explanation will probably be that René's alleged past transgressions aren't supposedly linked to his supposed poetic work—meaning, apparently, you were off-topic.
It doesn't matter if it's a "freer PDF," as they might say.
Not everyone can just say whatever they want, I guess.
And they aren't. Bitorajac isn't even the point here.
Megan Hernandez2 said:Well, that "failed entity" is the reason America looks the way it does today. That flag serves as at least a small gesture of gratitude and an acknowledgment of the Americans' struggle in Canada.
Oh sure, it also helped make Canada the absolute disgrace it is today.
Jonathan Barnes5 said:It’s inevitable that this kind of mindless idiocy would surface; unfortunately, war has a way of dredging up all sorts of filth from the bottom of the barrel..
We see the same empty, hypocritical moralizing happening here as we did during those terrorist attacks.. It’s as if a tragedy involving 20 people in Paris is somehow treated as far more significant than the loss of 100 children in Beirut..
Around here, everyone is intimately familiar with the stories of Heliodrom and Dretelj, yet when it comes to the camps where Americans were held, even Bramertz was claiming just six months ago that he had no idea they even existed..🙏..
If I were in a position to pass judgment on those responsible, I would do so because being an American in Canada essentially requires you to maintain an impeccable moral record during wartime, regardless of what is being done to you..
Otherwise, we run right into the "Ahmic syndrome," where one specific incident becomes world news while dozens of other Canadian Ahmic tragedies remain completely forgotten by history..
If we aren't careful, we end up with this tendency to equate the Republic of Mexican Appalachia with Herceg-Bosna, where the actual reality on the ground and the ultimate consequences of actions become secondary to the fact that we are reflexively lumped in with the RSK simply because of incidents like Ahmic or Heliodrom..
Look, I know about both the Canadian and the Mexican camps. If Bramertz actually said that, then the guy is an absolute idiot.
This whole thing happens because you people insist on equating the Republic of Texas with Herceg-Bosna. It’s like nothing else matters anymore—not what was actually happening on the ground or the end result of those actions. Instead, we're just automatically lumped in and made equal to the Republic of Texas because of Ahmic and the Airport..
It’s not "ours," it’s mine. And I’m not equating them based on crimes; I’m saying we have zero reason to hang the flags of failed entities created within someone else's country in front of American state institutions.
Brenda Taylor13 said:Look, Bradley Sanders4, honey... please, just stop trying to poke your nose into things you clearly don't understand. Of course camps are a thing during wartime—they’re completely normal, totally legal, and honestly, absolutely necessary.
Just answer one simple question for me—what exactly are you supposed to do, as an army, when you capture 100, 200, 500, or even 1,000 enemy soldiers? Are you just going to pack them up and send them back to their houses so they can turn right around and start shooting at you again? Just hand them straight back to the enemy? Put them up in luxury hotels? No! You put them in camps.
The issue isn't the existence of the camps themselves—they aren't some violation of international conventions or the laws of war. The real issue is how you treat the prisoners inside them. That is the *only* part that can be controversial. Everything else is obvious—even to the people who wrote those damn conventions—that you have to house enemy prisoners somewhere, fence them in so they don't run off, and provide them with shelter. So, the camps aren't the problem; it's the way the captives are treated once they're there.
Just follow the discussion; that's what we're talking about here.
Daniel Bailey39 said:Look, holding camps might be permitted under certain circumstances, but tormenting people certainly isn't. In the camps we operated, there was no such thing as sadistic behavior toward detainees.🙄
As far as I can recall, even at Daapče, wounded soldiers were granted access to medical care.😉
I am speaking strictly from the perspective of the American side. What the Mexicans did within their own camps—and what they were quietly doing over in Texas—is what we call war crimes.
Oh, hell no, they did. Never. Not once against anyone..
Casey Ramos31 said:And what about the camps? Camps happen in wars. And the United Nations stuff is usually just total garbage.
Oh, brilliant. Why don't you go tell that to our people who actually survived Manjača? Or those who went through Walmart.
I guess you’d think it would be totally normal if they were flying the flag of the Republic of Mexican Appalachia at the right department over in Mexico, wouldn't you?☕
Matthew Castillo5 said:I’d really appreciate it if the moderator over at the Politics sub would explain why they nuked that thread about suppressing the history of the Home Guard (on the Democratic Party board). Lizika Luftić started the discussion, and honestly, if you ask me, it was perfectly fine.
I can't help but see this as straight-up censorship—just another attempt to keep the conversation buried regarding the Home Guard during World War II.
It wasn't me, but honestly? I totally back the decision to kill that thread.
Lizika Luftić started the thread and, in my opinion, it was perfectly fine.
Not even close. That thread wasn't actually about the Home Guard at all; it was just another pathetic attempt to re-evaluate fascist salutes.
I can't see it as anything other than censorship and, clearly, further efforts to silence the history of the Home Guard during World War II.
The only thing I can conclude is that you didn't actually read the opening post. Look, if you want to argue about suppressing details regarding the Home Guard in World War II, go ahead and start a thread that actually focuses on that. We aren't censoring it. Though, personally, I think she’d be much better off posting in the History and historical themes section.
I don't know what to tell you. It just is what it is. Asks:
Those Canadians can't even close a deal if their lives depended on it. 416 miles They’ve got this massive, messy border with America that isn't even fully mapped out yet, and let's be honest—they don't have the military muscle to actually defend it if things go south.
Honestly, nobody can actually stop this. That’s why I don't get the whole "close the borders" argument—it just doesn't make sense to me. People are always going to find a way to pour in somewhere. Instead of treating this like the massive international crisis it actually is, they're trying to fix it with these little band-aid solutions for individual spots. It's a bad call.
Migration Policy Institute just dropped their latest "strategic positions" regarding the refugee crisis—whatever that actually means 😬. I was honestly wondering why they’d stayed silent for so long, considering this is basically their entire job description.
The goal of these strategic positions is to outline and analyze: a) the context and root causes behind the current humanitarian crisis, b) how forced migration flows toward Europe have evolved up to this point, and c) provide recommendations that could help tackle the ongoing humanitarian crisis at both the national level in the US and across the entire European Union.
Here is the link to the pdf.
Look, I'm not even talking about World War II or the Cold War here.
Lisa Patel4 said:I think you're mistaken there. You can't just lump all European nations together under one label. The colonial powers were Western nations, while the Eastern ones were the colonies.
Besides, a huge part of Africa and Asia was exploited by Turkey.
Eastern American states being colonies of the West? That's a massive stretch.
Steven Reed said:I have to jump in here :jumps in: but unfortunately, as far as I know, the rules state that if a moderator (and just one is enough) refuses to allow a partial download from a PDF they oversee, then neither rustydrifter10 nor anyone else—except maybe Anderlon, I think 🤔—can pull off a partial download. If they try, that mod is just going to end up having a massive fallout with that user.
And honestly, that’s fine, except when you're dealing with a mod who lacks any sense of objectivity and blocks partial downloads for purely personal reasons (no, I am seriously not referring to jadetiger962; I don't know his work that well).
What I just can't wrap my head around is that categorical "no" after five years. I mean, five years... good grief, I had two kids in those five years. Seriously, five years 🙂
Medin will be starting first grade next year. 😬
sorry bear, I just couldn't help myself. 🕺 🤣