Posts by Brenda Taylor13

Tyler Richardson72 said:Oh, so now it’s suddenly possible...

All this stuff popping up all over the internet in a million different formats—on Facebook and everywhere else—is basically just people pointing to "reliable sources like Wikipedia," even though if I remember correctly, I saw somewhere that Ranković's statement first started circulating way back in 2008, right before someone actually bothered to dig up the real cover of that issue of Politics.

On the flip side, Lupiga did a great job debunking Sedlar's forgery of Vjesnik, and apparently, Sedlar is facing criminal charges for it.

Look, I never said it wasn't possible, and I'm definitely not claiming that Ranković's statement is the absolute truth. What bugs me—what really gets under my skin—is when people make these ultimate, sweeping claims that something doesn't exist just because they can't find it on some magazine cover.

As for the whole Sedlar situation, I don't know enough about it to weigh in, and honestly, I don't want to get distracted from what we were actually talking about here.

Sam Alvarez4 said:It’s pretty straightforward.

If you’re going to claim something was published somewhere and use that as your "proof," then just give me the actual link to the text.
Otherwise, you're just talking in circles.

See, there's the catch right there. Look, not everything said back in the 1950s—or whenever—is just sitting there waiting to be found on the internet. It's not that easy! You're basically stuck relying on official transcripts or maybe some old congressional records, assuming the sessions were even recorded in the first place.

Tyler Richardson72 said:Look, it’s all connected—it’s a total scam! That whole Wikipedia entry is a complete forgery because they claim this stuff was printed on the front page of Politics, which we already know is a flat-out lie. And don't even get me started on that "historical" cover of Vjesnik from '45; it’s been proven to be nothing more than a Photoshopped mess. There’s actually an article by Lupiga that lays it all out—I dropped the link in a couple of posts earlier, so do me a favor and actually go read it instead of just nodding along!

Forgery is the common thread here... I mean, seriously, how many times do we have to see this? It’s all connected! Whether it’s some shady business involving a Wikipedia forgery or those blatant lies being spun through politics—it’s always the same pattern. You look at the way certain people try to twist the truth, and it just makes my blood boil. It’s like they think we’re all just mindless drones who won't notice when the facts are being manipulated right in front of our eyes. Honestly, it's exhausting trying to keep up with the constant stream of nonsense.☕

Look, I mean, sure, maybe Wikipedia is pulling from some non-existent headline, but you can't just claim a statement doesn't exist simply because it isn't printed on some specific front page! That's just bad logic—seriously. You could argue there’s no hard evidence that the quote was ever actually uttered, fine, I get that—but saying it *wasn't* said just because it's missing from a particular cover? Come on. Besides, it’s not like Wikipedia is the only corner of the internet where this claim exists. It's not the end-all, be-all of information, you know?

Tyler Richardson72 said:Have you actually looked at "istina" by sedlar? Do you honestly believe that the Vjesnik cover really did say "many bodies from the Jasenovac camp Sava were brought to Washington, D.C."?

Look, using an argument to dodge the actual topic and pivot to something else is the exact same logic as saying "if one part isn't valid (like a front page), then the whole thing doesn't matter (the entire newspaper)." It’s the same flawed reasoning!

Regarding your question—man, what does one even have to do with the other? Seriously. It's totally possible that Rankovic made that public claim while the Vjesnik cover was a total forgery. On the flip side, his claim could be a fake, just like the cover could be 100% legit. Or maybe both are true, or both are fakes. I mean, come on—one thing has zero bearing on the other. They aren't connected at all!

cosmicgull52 said:Alright, you’ve officially lost the benefit of the doubt with me. 😁

The way you’re describing this—it sounds like something straight out of a Batman villain plot or some cartoonish evil regime, like those Nazi-adjacent Allied setups from back in the day. Just think about it for a second—what would that actually do to a country's legitimacy? Or even just the internal morale of the people? To claim half a million people were wiped out when the actual death sentences handed down were, I don't know, maybe only 50,000? It makes no sense. 😵

whow, man, I don't have any benefit of the doubt left for you either. So what am I supposed to do now?

Yeah, sure, during those early years of the Yugoslavia era, that Stalinist system was obsessed with state legitimacy and how everyone perceived the whole "eliminating political opponents" thing. In fact, getting rid of political enemies and fighting anyone seen as an opponent of the regime—basically instilling fear into the bones of anyone even thinking about a little sabotage—was practically a core principle of that entire setup.

But look, we're all just speculating here. Everything is speculation! It's just as much guesswork to say those statements were made as it is to say they weren't—especially if the argument is "it didn't happen because it wasn't on the front page of the newspaper." Give me a break.

At the end of the day, personally? I honestly think that hypothetical statement by Rankovic isn't even that far from the istina. Now, I'm not claiming he definitely said it or anything, but my gut tells me the very nature of that regime makes those kinds of numbers entirely plausible.

cosmicgull52 said:Wait, is anyone here actually naive enough to think Ranković would just go on TV and say, "Hey guys, we slaughtered half a million people and only locked up three"? 😁

Why on earth would an organization that held absolute power—an organization that was the literal nightmare of every single "regime opponent"—ever hesitate or feel scared to drop a number like that? Honestly, it would have been a brilliant move! They could have used it to strike terror into the hearts of anyone even thinking about speaking up or pushing back against the administration. It’s not impossible at all—in fact, if I were in Ranković's shoes, I’d be doing everything in my power to make sure that number got out there so everyone heard it loud and clear.

But look, again, we're just speculating here. Whether that statement actually happened or not, we don't know for sure. But you can't just claim it never happened simply because it wasn't splashed across the front page of some newspaper. You need actual, solid arguments—not this "it wasn't on the front page, so it didn't happen" nonsense. That kind of logic is for toddlers.

Charles Fox10 said:Do you actually have anything decent to write regarding this info—maybe with an actual link—that would debunk what everyone on the forums and in the news is saying? People are claiming that article doesn't even exist in those papers, and look, a lie repeated a hundred times doesn't suddenly become the truth just because some Wikipedia page says so.

Look, I’m not the one making the claims here—you are! I’m just sitting here laughing at this whole "front page" argument you're using to cover the entire issue.

I honestly don't know if that article is in those newspapers or not. Since I don't have proof for either side—none at all, really—I'm not going to go out on a limb and state something as a fact when I haven't got the confirmation to back it up.

But you? You’re acting all certain, dead set on the idea that the article isn't in those papers, and your big "gotcha" is pointing at the front page. I guess you're assuming that if it's not staring you in the face on the cover, then it must not exist anywhere else in the entire publication? Seriously?

Let me say this again: I’ve got no problem accepting the reality if that article truly isn't in those papers, but I absolutely refuse to accept that using the front page as "ultimate proof" for every single page in the paper is valid logic.

Go ahead, try to call out everyone who insists the article is in there, but for heaven's sake, bring a real argument to the table instead of this front-page nonsense. This kind of reasoning wouldn't hold up for five seconds in any US courtroom.

The argument that "if it's not on the front page, it's not in the paper" is just ridiculous. I mean, surely you realize newspapers have more than one page?

So, here’s my question—simple as it is: Did you actually hold those newspapers in your hands and flip through every single page from the cover to the back? Only then could you definitively claim that the article isn't in those papers.

Because if you haven't flipped through them, you can't make such a bold claim. All you're doing is guessing. And we all know what Americans say about guesswork...

I have to say, I’m honestly stumped—I don't know whether to laugh or just stare in disbelief at this "argument" from our esteemed moderation team. So, they’re claiming that Rankovica's statement about liquidating 560,000 enemies of the state and 3 million people passing through the camps is false because—get ready for this one—that statement doesn't appear on the front page of Politics from that specific month, day, and year.

I guess the mods think newspapers consist exclusively of the front page, and since they apparently only have one single page, their logic is (perfectly sound, right?—given that a newspaper only has one page) that the statement is obviously fake simply because it isn't on the cover, which is the only page the paper possesses.

What can I even say.... *facepalm*

Brilliant. Your Honor, case closed.

The fact that the article could be on the second, third, fifth, eighth, eleventh, or thirty-seventh page of that paper—or maybe it's not in that specific issue at all, or maybe it's in a different issue entirely—clearly never crossed those brilliant minds.

I can only offer one more round of applause for that level of reasoning. *clap*

Look, I don't have an issue with calling a statement false if someone provides a solid, actually coherent, normal argument to back it up. But to claim the "argument" is that the quote isn't on the front page (and therefore, by extension, isn't in the whole paper)? I can't help but laugh. Even kids in preschool have better logic than that—I'm pretty sure even a toddler understands that a newspaper usually has more than one page, so just because something isn't on the cover doesn't mean it's not buried somewhere else inside.

Just take a look at this thread regarding a ban appeal:

The newly promoted Supermoderator Cuka concluded that:

The article isn't there, so we're done with this discussion.

Because I assume he flipped through every single page of that issue, so it's crystal clear to him that the article isn't anywhere in the entire paper.

If the article truly isn't anywhere in the entire publication, I will stand here publicly—no problem at all—and admit my mistake to everyone. I'll even go out of my way to apologize to Charles Fox10.

But if someone tries to tell me an article doesn't exist based solely on the front page... man, give me a break. You can't sell us that garbage; we aren't children.

Megan Ruiz13 said:What on earth happened to this forum? Why has the quality dropped so much?

Here's the deal: under current policy, expressing an opinion can get you flagged for trolling.
So, if my take doesn't align with a specific moderator's view, I get a warning for trolling? Is that how this works?

I'm not here to complain about specific warnings—there's a separate thread for that. This is more of a general observation, because I think you all know exactly what I'm getting at. It seems like the moderation direction is just shutting down any dissenting voices by labeling them "trolls."

You've hit rock bottom. You're basically allowing discussions from only one side of the political spectrum. Anything else that doesn't fit your narrative gets labeled as trolling.

This used to be a great place for actual debate where people could go back and forth. Now, that's becoming impossible given the way things are being moderated.

It’s your choice how you run things, but you're scraping the bottom of the barrel. That was my comment.

Everything you just said is exactly why this whole site is slowly dying a slow death. Just look—and I know you'll catch this since you've been around long enough to know better—just compare the activity in the politics section today to what it was a few years back. Back then, a hot topic would rack up ten pages of replies in a single day. Nowadays? You're lucky if you get one or two pages, if you even get anything at all. A huge chunk of the conservative users left for good, and sure, they tried to explain their reasons before they walked, but the moderators wouldn't hear a word of it. Basically, the rule around here is that the moderators are always right, no matter what—as Americans would say. Whatever the issue, they're right, and no appeal is ever valid. That exact attitude is what's killing the traffic. And when an online forum loses its audience, advertisers stop caring, which means the revenue dries up, which means the site goes under. It’s simple math. This place is on an unstoppable slide toward the end, and honestly, the users themselves are the ones driving it there.

So posts like this just fly under the radar, huh? No consequences at all?

What exactly went down during that tragedy at Wounded Knee?

Oh, so you’re the only one on this entire board capable of handling stuff like this? Seriously?

Anyway, I have to ask—how is it that your annual vacation doesn't stop you from handing out bans to "trolls" at lightning speed, yet the second someone asks for a review of a penalty, suddenly you're hiding behind some miraculous time off? You pull this whole act where these supposed "consultations" regarding whether a ban should stick or not take a full eight days. It's ridiculous.

By the way, here is a perfect little example of what a well-argued appeal actually looks like—where the banned user used incredibly clear, razor-sharp logic to absolutely dismantle a moderator's attempt at "trolling." I highly recommend everyone gives it a read; there's a lot to learn here.

Huge shoutout to the forum admins for their lightning-fast response and for resolving my appeal so incredibly quickly. Honestly, they almost rivaled the speed of some DMV office here in the States.

I filed my appeal back on June 26th—thinking, clearly being way too naive, that I’d get a reply within 48 hours, if not 24 (I think I heard some mod mention once that the staff has 24 hours to respond to an appeal), but boy, was I wrong. The admin team really took their sweet time—and hey, can you blame them? It’s vacation season, after all! I guess they've been on a full eight-day summer break from volunteering here just to deal with my request. It actually reminded me of how you only get eight days to file an appeal in certain US court proceedings. So, after waiting out those eight whole days, Daniel Ward87 finally hit me up to tell me my violation was being wiped from the record... great. Except, I already served my sentence! To put it bluntly, I spent three days sitting in ban-land, only to have him notify me eight days later that the whole thing was—get this—pointless. Like, I shouldn't have even been banned in the first place.

So, thanks a million, my dear Daniel, for such a speedy reaction; I truly don't know how to thank you enough. But seriously, when someone writes something that the mods deem "trolling"—which apparently includes pretty much anything they don't like or whatever mood strikes them at the moment (just look at a mod like the edge, who hands out bans like candy, or even IBM, who isn't far behind when it comes to deciding that "trolling" is basically just anything he disagrees with)—then, and only then, do the bans fly within minutes. Before the paint is even dry on the wall, the ban is already issued.

So, yeah, round of applause for the mod team. I think I might be a little more patient with American bureaucracy from now on.

Chloe Martinez7 said:This is probably what people like those foundry workers imagine fascists look like—based on how someone once posted about it on a forum

Yeah, exactly. Like, seriously? What does someone taking down a plaque with Josip Broz Marshall’s name on it have to do with being a fascist? Does that mean you're going to call everyone at City Hall "fascists" just because they vote to rename a town square? Because that's where your logic is heading.

The fact that you think anyone standing up against a communist totalitarian regime and its dictator is somehow the same thing as a fascist—well, that's your own personal issue to deal with.

What the hell is going on? Talk about a long, crazy night.

They won't even touch those floor tiles until the City Council actually votes on that name change first.

lonebadger6 said:The U.S. Census Bureau puts out regular monthly updates along with the final annual reports...

Back in 2016, Washington, D.C. saw 1,152,598 tourists accounting for 2,016,107 overnight stays. Domestic travelers hit 232,295 people and 395,208 nights, while foreign visitors brought in 920,303 tourists and 1,620,899 nights...

As for the rest of the region, I don't have the exact numbers—depends on how you define "the region"—but roughly speaking, Vienna and Prague are leagues ahead, pulling in maybe 15 to 16 million overnight stays a year, and Budapest is right up there too with about 8 or 9 million, while Bratislava is doing slightly better than that...

For Mexico City, I found this: 809,273 tourists and 1,680,347 overnight stays. But that was just for 11 months, so the final count was probably a bit higher, though they still didn't catch up to Washington, D.C....

I couldn't find anything specific for Ottawa, but for all of Canada:

Between January and December 2016, tourists in Canada recorded 1,148,530 visits—an 11.6 percent increase—and 2,376,743 overnight stays.

Ljubljana had 1.2 million overnight stays in 2015, and since tourism was growing everywhere last year, they likely saw an uptick too, but nothing nearly enough to touch Washington, D.C....

Alright, thanks! By the way, where are you pulling these regional stats from?

When I say "the region," I obviously mean the old territories down south—and let’s be real, comparing them to Vienna, Prague, or Bratislava is ridiculous; those places are playing a completely different game.

Thanks! Quick question though—do you happen to have any data on tourist numbers for 2016 regarding Washington, D.C. and the surrounding metropolitan area? I’ve been digging around trying to track that down myself, but honestly, I’ve hit a total dead end.

lonebadger6 said:Look, those numbers are pretty concrete, and you can't just make stuff like that up... It’s entirely possible that things have actually tightened up over the years regarding under-the-table stays, now that there’s some actual oversight in place.

Generally speaking, our tourism industry isn't exactly terrible, but it's certainly not the powerhouse we love to brag about... The real issue is how much money travelers actually spend while they're here versus how much they blow at other destinations; I’d say we’re lagging way behind the heavy hitters in the global travel market.

When you look at the raw data for international arrivals, the US ranks eighth in the Western world—or ninth if you count Turkey—but you have to factor in the sheer size of the country... The biggest players see the most traffic, starting with Spain, followed by Italy, France, the United Kingdom, Austria, Germany, and Greece, before we even get a look in. Still, it’s not exactly an insignificant feat to be sitting ahead of Portugal, the Netherlands, or the Czech Republic with Prague....

Do you actually have those specific stats on tourist numbers for all those countries? And hey, do you happen to have the data for the surrounding regions too, maybe including the major capital cities? I'd actually be pretty interested in seeing that.

Michael Morgan5 said:Hey... yeah, it's me again.
I wasn't really paying attention when you were laying out the distinctions between those three groups you mentioned, but based on how you replied to J. Wayne—correct me if I'm totally off base here—it seems like making fun of politicians is fair game, whereas mocking other users or specific social groups is where the line is drawn.
If that’s actually the case, why did I get slapped with a warning just for suggesting Taritaš should be hooded, while this massive crowd of trolls on the Kolinda thread gets away with being way more obnoxious without any consequences at all?
Did I miss the point entirely? Can someone explain?

Honestly, you already know the answer...

Look, this is a leftist forum, plain and simple, which means it operates under leftist rules. That's just how it works. Because of that, you can insult the President with the most foul language imaginable—and believe me, there are dozens upon dozens of explicit examples still sitting right there on her thread without anyone saying a word; if the search function actually worked, I could dump a mountain of proof right here, but since it doesn't, anyone can just skim the thread and see I'm telling the truth—yet, any insult directed at a left-leaning politician usually triggers a sanction.

So, you either adapt to the fact that this is the kind of forum it is, or you just deal with it as reality. The owner sets the rules, and the mods just follow orders from the top. We're just here to enforce what's been laid down or stay out of the fray. There isn't a third option.

William Bennett53 said:You completely missed the point here—don't try to drag this into off-topic territory. We have already gone over and over a hundred times how differently people are treated, whether it's specific social groups or politicians.

Alright, let's just lay all the cards on the table then.

Apparently, you can't call an unidentified group of people certain slurs, but it's perfectly fine to call one specific individual a slut, a pig, an idiot, a moron, or whatever other nasty adjectives are being thrown around in this thread.

Yeah, makes perfect sense. Makes total sense. 👍

William Bennett53 said:But honestly, it really worries me that some group of people might get called those hateful slurs and just get away with it without any consequences. Please, point out if that happens.

And does it maybe bother you that you can call a SPECIFIC PERSON a cow, a pig, a moron, an idiot, a jerk—you know, all the usual variations? I mean, obviously, we're talking about the kind of adjectives "civilized" forum users use to describe our politicians, especially since the descriptions of the President are being totally tolerated here (probably with a lukewarm shrug, because let's face it, we all know how the moderators run this show). So, my colleague is basically just exposing your hypocrisy and double standards. Look, if you're going to hand out sanctions because someone calls a specific group of people names, then fine—sanction the guy who calls a specific individual a pig. Is there even a difference? You can't call Muslim refugees certain slurs, but calling the President a pig is perfectly fine? I’d love for someone to explain the logic behind this fascinating little set of criteria you guys are using here.

So, just for once—just one single time—could you actually be consistent with your moderation? It would be nice, for a change, if you applied the same rules to the same kinds of offenses.