Posts by Bradley Sanders4

Robert Hernandez10 said:The truth is, there are victims on all sides of the fence—people whose graves are lost and for whom you can't even light a candle.

Exactly.

For those people that former minister Joseph Stalin (rightfully) looked after, we have collective memorials, specific dates, state protocols, and everything down the line from there.

We also have collective memorials, set dates, and official state protocols for the victims of the POW camps. What's missing are many individual graves and burial sites, but honestly, you don't even have those in many cases for the fallen or murdered from your own side either. It always comes back to these collective markers.

As for the others that former minister Joseph Stalin (wrongly) ignored, there is nothing. Not even anything collective.

Since you're so hell-bent on sticking to "facts," why don't you tell me what D-Day or Queens are supposed to be, where commemorations happen under the patronage of state institutions and visits from top government officials?

An answer regarding the Jasenovac memorial would actually make sense here.

This isn't a conversation.

Robert Hernandez10 said:My very first thought was this: "Avoid all 'politics,' especially that tired old routine about 'resistance fighters vs. collaborators.' It’s always dragged out whenever someone needs to pivot or distract from what’s actually happening right now."

Look, despite that opening line, by only calling out the crimes of one specific group, you basically handed a roadmap to anyone looking to turn this into a political circus. That’s exactly why bad actors immediately jumped in demanding political debates and endless statistics. And honestly? That explains why the thread isn't being moderated through deletions or bans—it's because the whole thing was framed in a way that practically invited extremist replies. On news forums like this, we see threads pop up constantly focusing on ideological wars or wartime atrocities involving raw numbers, and it never ends well. So, in my opinion, my call as a moderator to just lock the whole discussion down was the right move.

mistyseal8 said:It’s not even about philosophy at this point; some people here are just straight-up justifying crimes and extrajudicial killings. Take the events at Waterloo, for instance. You had all sorts of groups involved—different factions, militias, and innocent civilians. Sure, some individuals were definitely guilty and deserved justice, but only through a legitimate legal process. Most of them certainly didn't. Some folks on this forum seem to ignore those nuances entirely, basically giving a thumbs up to collective executions. That’s what really gets to me.

Look, please stop being vague and talking out of turn. Posts like that have never gone unpunished here, and they won't start now. The post you flagged was sanctioned, and the user is already banned. If you actually have an example we missed—like I said before—just report it, and we'll deal with it immediately.

Is someone actually out here glorifying crimes? Look, standing up against fascism isn't a crime.

If you're going to brag about criminal acts, report it. We'll handle the sanctions.

Amanda Allen4 said:Personally, I find the mosques built in that "Ottoman" style much more appealing than the "Arabic" ones—largely due to historical ties. There is a deep-rooted tradition tied to our borderlands behind them.

No matter how bloody the history was, back when the Turk wore a fez, things were arguably better than they are today.

It feels like you’re confusing the modern Islamic world with historical Arab architecture. 😁

Joshua Clark7 said:Let’s be real here: you aren't even allowed to voice a single critical thought about feminism anymore without someone losing their mind. It’s basically become this untouchable dogma where any kind of pushback is treated like a crime. You try to point out a flaw or ask a logical question, and suddenly you're the villain. It’s ridiculous.

Look, let’s get one thing straight: a lot of what people are posting here—and on similar threads—isn't actually critical speech. If you want to talk about criticism, you have to actually argue a point. You have to look at a phenomenon, weigh the pros and cons, and figure out what works and what doesn't, whether that's looking at the impact on women, men, or society as a whole. Feminism isn't some single, monolithic block. It’s split into dozens of different schools of thought and factions. If you’re actually going to try and critique it, you should probably do the homework first to understand what you're even talking about. Instead of doing that, everyone just jumps to these sweeping generalizations, blaming everything they dislike on some vague group of feminists who supposedly hate men or "advocate for undemocratic methods." That's not an argument; it's just lazy.

As for why you actually got that red card, here’s the deal:

If some hardcore feminist like Jelena Veljača had given her advice, Nina would’ve probably just walked away from the whole thing. She’d have ended up becoming one of those activists pushing for mandatory quotas in reality TV shows, because let’s face it—in this business, a woman doesn't stand a chance at winning unless the deck is stacked in her favor.

This is nothing but a blatant attempt to stir the pot and make feminism—or at least anyone you happen to label as a feminist—look bad. Honestly, it’s just pure trolling. It’s miles away from having the kind of actual, high-quality debate you're trying to foster here.

You're right about the moderation criteria. Honestly, I think it would be a good move to standardize them all.

bluecyclist64 said:Nah, I'm just too pissed off right now, so I figured I'd come here and air my grievances where everyone can see them.

Look, please just report it. We get flooded with so many posts on the Politics board every single day that we can't possibly track them all manually. Most of the time, we're basically just reacting to what people flag.

Ashley Smith24 said:The issue is there weren't any off-topic posts at the exact moment the thread was being locked and unlocked.

My take as a moderator is that this happened because the posts weren't actually about gender quotas. Instead, they were just insisting that existing legal solutions in the US are discriminatory against men. To me, that’s just dragging in the same arguments from those two previous threads we already shut down. Plus, my assessment is that calling the Civil Rights Commissioner "so-called" or "fake," labeling men as "victims," and calling advocacy groups "chauvinists" with the goal of "demonizing men"—all while using a vocabulary that avoids addressing actual issues facing men—is just blatant trolling aimed at defaming the very people fighting discrimination. Since that kind of behavior is clearly meant to derail the conversation regarding victims of violence, it earned a red card.

Look, every moderator's call is subjective. If the super-mod thinks I overstepped my authority, then fine, go ahead and delete the warning and pull the cards.

Ashley Smith24 said:I’d love to hear what you think about how Guggenheim actually crossed the line with those supermoderator warnings.

I left you a note in the Saurus edit. Guggenheim is basically ignoring the warnings from Supermodel and just blowing this whole thing out of proportion. Instead of sticking to the topic, they’re pivoting the entire conversation toward general gender inequality, recycling those same old tired arguments about men being victims and how certain feminist groups are just chauvinistic organizations that demonize men. It's the exact same stuff we saw in the last two threads. Look, don't get me wrong—I'm not saying these advocacy groups are perfect or above criticism, but you can't just hijack the discussion like this, especially when people have explicitly asked twice not to take the conversation in that direction.

Ashley Smith24 said:After seeing how Sarah Doyle54 reacted to that whole situation, I took a quick look at what everyone else on the forum was saying. Satnik's He agreed with that controversial post from Guggenheim, but he got slapped with a ban immediately after. Then, just a few moments later, Satnik's entire post was wiped clean.

Satnik's actually broken the mod warnings twice now, not just once. Standard procedure for this kind of thing is to issue a strike and wipe the posts.

Ashley Smith24 said:I see you went back and edited your post. I have to jump in here just to keep things transparent and stick to the facts: the thread was locked and then unlocked. I'm not sure what you mean by that. You just dropped a single word without any context. If you're trying to start a conversation or vent about something, you'll have to give me more to work with. I'm sitting here ready to go, but I can't exactly respond to a fragment. What's on your mind? So, did Satnik's post actually show up? Because locking things down over that specific post makes absolutely zero sense.

Exactly. That post by Satnik right after the opening was such a blatant attempt to derail the whole conversation. Once he started veering off into those two previous threads that were already locked, it was game over. It just goes to show I wasn't wrong to walk away when I did. Third. Moderator warning. 😉

Ashley Smith24, those warnings for Guggenheim actually happened after the supermod asked twice (1, 2) to stop letting this thread spiral out of control, especially since the last two threads were shut down for the exact same reasons.

Regarding the locking part—look, you weren't wrong. I actually did lock it for a few minutes because people kept ignoring the mod warnings, which is how we do things here. But honestly, since gender quotas are a totally legitimate political debate, it’s just not fair to punish everyone else just because a few people want to go off on tangents about "demonizing men" or "radical feminists" (deleted that part, wasn't Guggenheim's anyway). I realized I overreacted, so I went ahead and unlocked the thread.

northerntiger said:If I drop a link to something that’s heavy on text, I’m just going to quote a specific snippet—like that biography of a public official we were talking about earlier—rather than retyping the whole damn thing. Honestly, I can't stand playing translator for things that are already staring you in the face. I'd much rather just lay out the actual words so you guys can see if my take is actually backed by facts or if I'm just making stuff up again.

I get what you're saying, but honestly, it’d be way more efficient if you just quoted the specific snippet you need to back up your points and then dropped a link to the full article. That way we aren't wading through walls of text. Plus, it helps us avoid exactly what rapidnomad512 was talking about.

rapidnomad512 said:Honestly, I might just start doing the exact same thing. I’ll just start copying Lovrić, Šol, and a few of those other guys and start hitting them back. Before you know it, there will be two articles by northerntiger and two of my own cluttering up the site. If people actually want to read that mess, fine. Let them.

🙂

Susan Price30 said:Alright, I guess I'll go take a look then...

Whatever makes you happy. 🤣 Honestly, I don't think it makes much sense. It’s highly unlikely anyone is going to dig through those ancient threads from the Stone Age just to find some missed details or old drama we overlooked.

northerntiger said:I broke the 2,000-character limit in two different posts, so I'll leave it up to the mods to decide on any penalties.

Honestly, I don't see the point in playing cop and handing out tickets just because a post happens to be 2,001 characters instead of 1,999.

The rule about quoting massive walls of text was meant to stop discussions from getting diluted. If we start obsessing over the count, we can just lower the limit to 200 characters, and then some "genius" will just chop a 2,000-character essay into ten separate posts of 200 each. Or worse, you'll have people who contribute nothing to the community except by dumping huge quotes and pretending it's their own original thought—and those are the people we should actually be calling out. Personally, I think this kind of nitpicking over character counts and adding more bureaucracy to rules that are already bureaucratic enough is a waste of everyone's time, both for the users and the mods.

It would be great if people just stopped posting massive chunks of text that don't actually advance the conversation (you know, the stuff you just scroll past without reading), and that's really all there is to it.

Susan Price30 said:And you knew they were just blatant copies in English, yet you didn't lift a finger.

Should I drop the link for that?

Look, we’ve been scrubbing them, so if one of those English-language copycat posts slipped through the cracks, just post it. 😁

Look, putting aside all the ideological fighting for a second, dumping massive walls of text here is just counterproductive. Between reading official complaints and scanning through comments, it feels like people mostly just scroll past everything—even when someone puts effort into an original post, let alone when they're posting excerpts from articles that anyone could read themselves with a quick click on the link. I guess it’s because it’s way easier to pick a fight with someone’s opinions, beliefs, or trolling on a forum than it is to argue with a published, static text. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we should ban copy-pasting entirely. It just seems to me that if we want discussions to actually be efficient and move along, we'd be better off using smaller quotes or just summarizing the main points.

Look, if you didn't think this title was a total troll move, you wouldn't be lurking here asking questions—you’d just go ahead and start your own thread, right? 😁

If you actually have some real arguments, then lay them out. Just keep in mind we reserve the right to change the title whenever the mods decide it needs fixing.

Jessica Kelly4 said:But I’m looking at this through a political lens.

If I stormed into a parenting forum and started using that kind of language, they’d be totally justified in shutting me down because the context would be completely different.

The whole goal of pro-life political action is specifically to criminalize abortion by defining it as the killing of a human being, which means pushing to change current laws. Sure, the experts don't all agree, but if I drop a link to a major embryology textbook or a quote stating that a zygote is the start of a human life—and provide several links showing that a significant part of the scientific community agrees—then I believe my argument is rationally grounded. An admin shouldn't just use their discretion to ban my claims.

And for the record, the pro-life movement isn't some fringe group. It's a global movement with influence in major institutions and universities worldwide. Their discourse and demands are public and well-documented.

It’s honestly pretty ridiculous when you see people trying to justify their own behavior by pointing to the exact same mess they're actively making. You can't really claim the context justifies your actions when your actions are what created that context in the first place. It just doesn't add up. 🤷

The whole pro-life political movement is basically aiming to criminalize abortion by treating it as the killing of a human being—which means pushing to overhaul our current laws. Look, I get it, the medical community isn't a monolith and experts disagree on everything. But if I hand you a link to one of the most widely read embryology textbooks out there, along with a direct quote stating that a zygote is the start of a new human life, and then back that up with several other links proving that at least a significant portion of the field agrees with me... then I’ve built a rational case. It’s just wrong for an admin to use their discretionary power to shut down my arguments like that.

Look, I’ve said this before: expertise isn't some monolith. It's fragmented. So, if you aren't explicitly stating that your sources represent just one specific school of thought, your arguments aren't exactly grounded in logic. As long as you include those links and clarify that you're only presenting one piece of the professional puzzle, then fine—you're being fair to the field and to the people you're talking to. If you don't? You're not. Simple as that.

And just to top it all off, let’s be real: the pro-life movement isn't some obscure fringe group hiding in the shadows. It’s a massive, global movement. We're talking about organizations that have deep roots and serious influence within the most powerful institutions and universities across the country. Their arguments, their discourse, and their demands aren't secret—they are out there in the public eye, plain as day, and everyone knows exactly where they stand.

No offense intended, but that isn't even an argument.

lonebadger6 said:Sorry, just seeing this now...

Personally, I don't see any issue with a politics ban abortion debate on the Politics board...

My issue is when you allow the debate to happen, but then silence one side or hand out bans for saying exactly what their entire platform is built on. That's just messy, and those bans feel pretty unfair...

If a thread gets locked, fine. There's usually a reason for it. But letting a thread stay open only to penalize someone for expressing their core argument... that's just nonsense...

For me, it’s all about the rhetoric. Calling women who have abortions "murderers"—even if you try to sugarcoat it—doesn't exactly help create an environment where anyone can actually have a reasoned discussion about the topic. Especially since even the medical experts aren't exactly in total agreement on when life actually begins.

Just a little personal take here. The pro-life and pro-choice movements aren't equally distant from some imaginary middle ground. One side is clearly more radical than the other, so moderation naturally seems to lean toward the pro-choice crowd. It would be a completely different story if the pro-choice side was making demands for forced abortions or sterilizations.

steelskipper5 said:Geez. Just how much nonsense can you fit into a few short posts?
Kill it before it lays eggs.

I'm actually worried this thing reproduces by splitting itself apart. 😳

Ashley Bishop4 said:Real men don't bother clearing their browser history when their wife hops on the family computer.

Be a real man! 👍

Exactly, they just stick to Incognito mode!
🙂

I don't know why you guys even bother with this stuff. 🙄

fadedcrane48 said:Screw everyone:
I honestly think we need to take a step back and look at how much this whole thing actually affects us—like, really look at it. I mean, maybe I’m overthinking things, but there’s just something about the way people are reacting that feels... off? It's like everyone is so caught up in their own little bubbles that they aren't seeing the bigger picture, you know? And then you have people like William Bennett53 jumping in with those intense takes—which, hey, fair enough, I get where he's coming from—but it still feels like we're missing the core issue here. It’s almost like we’re all just shouting into the void instead of actually having a real conversation. I guess what I’m trying to say is that if we don't start looking at the actual facts behind the history and naming of these events, we're just going to keep spinning our wheels. It’s kind of wild when you think about it—how one single event can trigger such a massive wave of emotion across the entire country. It’s messy, it’s complicated, and honestly, it’s probably a bit overwhelming for most of us. But I truly believe that if we could just slow down—just for a second—and stop being so reactive, we might actually get somewhere. Or maybe I'm just being overly optimistic, but I'd like to think there's a way through this without everyone losing their minds.

So, here’s my little explanation for everyone I’m supposedly telling to go screw themselves:
I don't know, maybe I'm just overthinking things—but I honestly feel like we’re missing the forest for the trees here. It seems like everyone is just jumping to conclusions without really digging into the actual context of how things developed. Like, if you look at the way people are reacting now versus how they were acting back during the American Civil War era, there's this weird disconnect, right? It’s almost like we’ve forgotten the actual history and naming of these events, which makes the current arguments feel a bit hollow to me. I guess what I'm trying to say is that emotions are running high, but that doesn't necessarily mean the logic holds up. People want quick answers—they want someone to blame immediately—but real situations are usually way more layered than that. It’s easy to get caught up in the noise, especially when everyone is shouting at once, but I think if we actually slowed down and looked at the nuances, we might see a different picture entirely. Just my two cents, though. I could be totally off base here.

Even though there wasn't much being said about this topic—and honestly, I don't think anyone really gave a damn about Jelena Rozga regardless of their political leanings—was Thomson actually worth anything to anyone?
So—out of nowhere—someone just drops a "screw Tomconovac" comment... (even though I know messing around with names or nicknames is technically against the rules here).

Here’s an example of how you might look at my supposed support for spreading hatred:I mean, I guess if we're being totally honest here—and I think we should be—it’s kind of hard to wrap your head around how much things have shifted since the American Civil War era compared to what we're seeing now. It’s just... different. Everything feels a bit more heightened, maybe? Looking back at how people used to talk about certain historical events, or even just the way we handle political debates today, there's this massive gap. Like, back then, the discourse was so much more grounded, I suppose. Now, it feels like everything is immediate and intense. It makes you wonder if we've lost that ability to just sit with an idea without immediately jumping to conclusions or getting caught up in the noise. Anyway, I'm just rambling, I know. But yeah, it's a lot to process when you really start digging into the history and naming of these conflicts and how they shape our current perspective. It’s definitely not as simple as it looks on the surface.

So, here’s the deal—this was a response to a post by your buddy Power Locko, and I made sure to stay completely on topic. Like, totally, absolutely on topic. But you went ahead and wiped my entire post without even giving me a reason why. Then, on my other post—the one you actually left up—you slapped me with a hate speech penalty, even though there wasn't a single shred of hate speech in there. I filed an appeal, and then you just changed the violation from hate speech to trolling... which, I guess, just feels like more proof that you guys are backing a specific political agenda by letting hate speech slide while targeting people like me.

I’m gonna drop an excerpt here from one of the moderator's posts—Power Locko—because honestly, it’s probably the clearest example of hate speech and incitement I've seen around here. In this specific quote, he actually ends up contradicting himself mid-sentence, though I guess he doesn't even realize he's doing it... he's just too blinded by all that hatred, I suppose.
Look, you deleted my response without even giving me an explanation—so I’m gonna ask you nicely to just put it back here in the debate. I really don't want to have to rewrite everything from memory, otherwise people might think I'm just making stuff up as I go along.
I think you can see that deleted post.
I'm also looking for an explanation as to why it was deleted—could someone please clarify that?

Look, let's be real here—Israel is a serious, established nation-state. They're a major global player on the world stage. Hamas isn't even remotely in the same league, let alone playing the same game. Honestly, you guys are getting pretty exhausting with these demands... I mean, if we're going to call Hamas by that name, then sure, we can call Israel whatever else people want to call them. It's just how it works, I guess.
It’s just not happening.
Look, if anyone actually wants to go toe-to-toe with Israel—whether they’re trying to fight them physically or just attempting to outmaneuver them politically—then Hamas needs to be defeated first. I mean, honestly, until that happens, I don't see how they can demand the same level of respect that established, legitimate nations get. It's just how things work, I guess.
This forum should be a space for free thinkers and independent minds to hash things out—not a playground for political hacks pushing their own propaganda.

The thing is, looking at what the moderator said, they’re basically peddling the worst kind of hate and chauvinism. It feels like if you belong to a group or a nation that doesn't have its own state or the backing of a massive superpower, you just don't get rights or freedom here.
Then, after spinning that blatant inequality, the moderator tries to pass it off as "freedom for free thinkers."
Honestly, it’s shameless to call Censorship "freedom of speech." Unbelievable. It’s straight out of a North Korean playbook.

Anyone who dares to disagree gets slapped with the "political propagandist" label, all while the moderator is busy running propaganda that even a totalitarian regime would find embarrassing.

If we actually take this guy's logic as the rule for this forum, then I guess Americans during the Communist era were totally justified in being oppressed and killed.
By his logic, people like Prekovic and Mustac shouldn't even face trial; they should just be declared national heroes from the old Communist days.
And by his reasoning, the defenders of El Paso—and everyone else who fought for America before it was internationally recognized—got exactly what they deserved, simply because the country wasn't officially a sovereign state back then.
I won't even get started on Jewish people before 1948 when they didn't have a state of their own. And so on, and so on...

See, you punished me for "hate speech" that wasn't even in my post—which you basically admitted to—and then gave me a warning for trolling, which I wasn't doing either, but whatever; meanwhile, you deleted my post where I was calling out the hate speech from the moderator Power, yet you left his post—which is dripping with hatred and chauvinism—up as if it were some beautiful love letter.
Look, this isn't about politics or differing opinions; it's about the forum's policy, which seems to allow spreading hate against anyone who doesn't have a moderator on their side.
People like those "Tomconovac" types, or Americans from Canada, and stuff like that.

I even tried to chime in on that "Mexico 2014" thread where people were literally bragging about slaughtering women, children, and the elderly—the moderator just put up a little "request" without any actual moderator authority, the insults toward the dead kept flying, and then he just shut the whole thread down.
Without handing out a single penalty for those morbid posts and all that nonsense.

So then I come here, you tell me you're only a moderator for this specific section, and then you delete my posts and give me a strike for no reason.
All while you leave up posts that spread nothing but hate and chauvinism under the guise of being "free and open-minded."
Calling Censorship "free thought"—that's a pretty clever patent for North Korea.

LP

The Hamas-Israel comparison just doesn't work because Hamas isn't synonymous with Palestine, just like Israel isn't synonymous with Likud. 😉