If we're playing by your logic, you don't actually have the right to implicitly label RIOBOSS a slanderer—which is essentially accusing someone of a crime—since there isn't an active court case or a final conviction against RIOBOSS for libel.
Go ahead, find me a single post where I RIOBOSS call a slanderer. And no, that’s not what happened, because my warning—much like any other here—was phrased generally and didn't target any specific forum member.
Jerry Rogers6
Let me just copy-paste the moderator's response from that thread about Ukraine for you:
The President of Ukraine is, first and foremost, a politician. No politician on this forum enjoys "untouchable" status—that certainly doesn't apply to any American politicians, so it would be inappropriate to grant it to any foreign leader either. What isn't allowed, and cannot be tolerated, are heavy insults using extremely vulgar language, nor is it permitted to imply any criminal liability (such as genocide, war crimes, etc.) as if they were established facts before a legal verdict has been reached.
Let me give you a perfect example here... After I issued my warning, user Mikoli wrote all that without being insulting, so naturally, his post wasn't flagged. Then, Joshua Diaz18 jumps back in to debate my moderation style, despite this thread existing specifically for that purpose. He’d already been sent a warning via the official PDF guidelines for doing the exact same thing. I suppose we should all just throw our hands up and let "freedom of speech" turn this entire topic into a race to see who can hurl the most insults first—because clearly, expecting people to actually follow the rules is asking too much if they think they can get away with it.
I’m sticking to my guns on this one: I refuse to let anyone label someone a war criminal when there aren't even any formal charges. At this point, it's entirely up to the administration.
You see how messy things get when you let personal bias take the wheel and just lash out.🤣 Btw, I’m pretty sure that red card was totally deserved, though I know you probably don't care much about that. 😁
May's post might be problematic, but it flies under the radar since they aren't throwing out labels or making direct accusations; they're just asking questions. Meanwhile, you’ve come out swinging by labeling one entire side as pedophiles, cannibals, and Nazis. You aren't inviting us to compare rhetoric or questioning if it exists—you're flat-out stating it as fact. That's why I rated your post as "heavier." By the way, looking at that whole argument, both sides are equally clueless. Since this is a new thread, we have stricter criteria now, which I'm on board with.
jadeorca42 said:Your issue—or rather, your inability to distinguish between actual violations of forum rules and criminal law versus just being unable to handle a bit of friendly criticism without taking it personally—is pretty obvious. By the way, you’re also right up there with the people promoting chauvinism and national hatred (against Palestinians, for instance).
That’s why threads about Ukraine are totally warped, much like the ones on Syria, Libya, Iraq, or Iran... and naturally, it’s the moderators' fault, not the community's.
Go ahead and take this as a personal attack if that helps you sleep at night.
I don't believe my moderation has done you any favors, and I'm confident that the bans I issued (if I recall, there were only two) were entirely justified. Since you're clearly someone who isn't interested in civil discourse (at least not in my book), and since there's zero chance of you learning from this before trying to bait me into an argument... let's just call it even. This debate, and any future ones, are officially over.
loneraven25 said:I am formally requesting the relevant administration to unconditionally enforce their General Rules and Terms of Service:
So, looking at this thread about Ukraine, we have posts actively justifying one nation's aggression against another, which is actually a crime under our Penal Code punishable by up to ten years.
The crime of aggression
To clarify what constitutes aggression, please refer to Article 4.
From this point, it's clear that Russia is the aggressor on the sovereign territory of Ukraine, and the reason I haven't listed every single post justifying this aggression is simple — there are just too many of them, and the outliers are even more frequent. 🤦 I realize moderation is a nightmare, but these kinds of comments are poisoning the well for any decent discussion.
Moderating this is a mess, and I’m not even exaggerating. I'll admit I was wrong to think the passions surrounding Ukraine could be settled through compromise... and sure, you can talk sense into some people, but unfortunately, not everyone. Things need to boil over and start from scratch without making concessions, because trying anything else has clearly been a mistake.
That whole partisan spirit belongs in the history books. WWII ended ages ago, for crying out loud. Anti-fascism is a different matter entirely; we operate under the principles of the Atlantic Charter, which reaffirms the "anti-fascist democratic foundations and commitment of the United States." 🤷
Here’s why I decided to lock this thread. Starting a discussion with an opening post loaded with labels like this just invites fighting, trolling, and endless bickering. We don't need that here, especially since we spend all our time fighting against violence and discrimination on our other board. I'll leave any further decisions to the admins.
The headline basically paints the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission as chauvinistic. The opening post starts off with all this talk about "gender chauvinism" and people making sexist remarks. It goes as far as calling the EEOC an agency dedicated to promoting women's interests and demonizing men. Opening a thread like this—with an intro like that—is just an invitation for trolling, fighting, and a full-blown crusade against the EEOC.
I wasn't online when that happened, or maybe I just missed those posts because this thread is moving at a ridiculous pace. It's all sorted out now, though. Thanks for the heads-up.
Since I’m actually moderating this thread myself, I find myself agreeing with Charles Fox10 regarding how things are being handled here. This topic is a powder keg, and trying any other approach to moderation would just end up being counterproductive for both the discussion and the people involved. That’s just my take on it...
Frank Morgan2 said:You're looking at this through a keyhole, so I guess the comparison seems illogical to you. If you "open the door," your perspective widens—not to mention how much better you can see once you step out into the open. Americans didn't have their own state either, and you could argue about how much control they actually have over it today, so the comparison holds water. Even now, Jews are still seeking justice for criminals from World War II, while Americans are still busy "investigating" who was defending or attacking Stalingrad!!! People are getting fired just for welcoming our HEROES (Gotovina and Markač)!!! And so on, and so forth... In that sense, maybe you're right—we haven't quite reached the level of the Jews, so maybe we should be taking some lessons from them.
Best, Frank Morgan2
Best, Frank Morgan2
The Americans gained independence and established a state, which was immediately attacked. You could compare that to the founding of Israel, where everyone in the neighborhood attacked them right after the declaration, though obviously not in the context of the Holocaust. We managed to organize ourselves, set up an army, and had a general staff and a president. We weren't recognized immediately, but we were a state nonetheless. That's something Jews didn't have throughout all of World War II. They didn't offer organized armed resistance; they didn't have the means or the equipment, nor did they have any elements of a state or an army. That is why they couldn't commit crimes in self-defense, which is why they are seen as "pure victims." .................................................. ................................................ By the way, it would be great if we could be more like Israelis. Not necessarily like Jews, but like Israelis. "Never again bowed heads, never again like sheep to the slaughter." "Weak nations want to be loved; strong nations demand respect!" And they certainly live by that code....
I see where you're coming from, but I think your comparison to Jews is off base. The situation for Jews after World War II was incredibly specific. They were targeted for extermination without ever being an actual military threat; they didn't have a state, which meant no army and zero capacity for organized defense—unless you count the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, which, while brave, was more of a desperate last stand than a conventional military operation. Every single victim was a civilian, and since they lacked any means of combat, they weren't "defending" themselves in any traditional sense. That’s why this doesn't really square with standard warfare or the sacrifices made by other groups (aside from the Romani, who faced a similar fate). Take the Russians, for example; we know they committed atrocities against civilians when they pushed into Germany. That doesn't diminish the Russian losses, but it certainly doesn't put them in the same category as the Jews.
Ryan Harris10 said:In the States, those kinds of people aren't rare—it's just that they don't exist...
Why is that?
That’s more of a psychology question. Even among Jews, there weren't many of them. Most victims probably just want to move on, start a family, and not spend their whole lives reliving the trauma.
The real question is why we don't have a figure like Simon Wiesenthal here in the States, considering he founded the very center that Zuroff now runs. I mean, why hasn't someone like Wiesenthal emerged in our own history? This was a man who, while still stuck in a camp, vowed that every single criminal would face justice, and he spent his time compiling lists right there in the middle of it all—just to make sure nobody slipped through the cracks once they were released. He found his life's purpose, and more importantly, his reason for surviving, in the hunt for Nazi Germany war criminals. He felt that being a survivor was only meaningful if he ensured those who didn't make it were held accountable. Everything started with him... America needs a Wiesenthal, if it isn't already too late, which I suspect it might be. Besides, it’s becoming pretty obvious that people like that are incredibly rare. And then there's what Beljki mentioned... that the walls were "pure victims," lacking even an army to defend themselves.