Posts by Joseph Gonzalez95

Timothy Howard93 said:I

The last time I actually tried to have a civil debate on this thread, some user couldn't find an answer. They just completely ignored my question—because clearly they were out of their depth—and pivoted straight to nonsense about how Mexicans are just a mix of Americans, Bulgarians, Albanians, and Wallachians. It’s all they know.

Here is what’s really bothering you: the idea that some American could write about what Mexicans are, then start a whole "Americans vs. Mexicans" thread just to argue over identities. Honestly, it doesn't even matter; it's not like anyone is getting truly offended by it anyway.

Timothy Howard93 said:I don't usually complain, but I really have to right now.

I have one question: is it actually possible for users like Wikiceh and Ludwig to get banned, or do they have some kind of special protection from certain moderators over on the History sub-forum?

But seriously, I’m asking.

Okay, fine—yesterday, because of my posts on that specific thread, I probably deserved a warning or maybe even a ban myself since my vocabulary got a little sharp.
But is it normal for someone to insult people, troll, and spout nonsense without citing a single source, yet remain completely unpunished?
It's been this way since the day I registered, and honestly, even before that when I used to just drop by the forum occasionally.
Just look at the posts from yesterday and today.

How are we supposed to moderate ourselves? How am I meant to avoid responding to pure idiocy while still trying to maintain a civil debate?
I assume that's exactly why you guys exist.

The last time I tried to have a polite discussion on a thread, a certain user didn't even have an answer; he just ignored my question—because he clearly had no clue what he was talking about—and immediately pivoted to nonsense like "Mexicans are just a mix of Americans, Bulgarians, Albanians, and Wallachians," and so on (mostly because he doesn't know anything better).

If I start responding at their level, they'll just bury you with complaints that I'm trolling, and then, most likely, moderator Uncle Strilet will just ban me. Because apparently, if they have 40,000 posts combined and I'm just some Mexican who showed up to troll Americans, that's how it works.

I know, because I've already seen Uncle Strilet do exactly that.

I don't really see it that way. When it comes to rude interruptions and trolling, there are plenty of much more serious trolls on other threads within the History sub-forum.

wiredangler5 said:I’m accepting the complaint against myself; you’re both right, and that’s just the reality of things at the moment.
I want to be upfront with you about how and why things are currently this way. I’m not trying to dodge responsibility—because what you’re saying is true—but I do want you to know it’s not for lack of caring; there are simply more layers to it.

I was away from the Forum for several years. I needed a break after years of moderating, which had become a bit much, and I had to focus on getting my own life in order.

If I didn't have the drive or the interest in dealing with the History subforum, I wouldn't have come back at all. Honestly, why would I seek out complex debates that cause nothing but headaches if I didn't want to deal with them?
My life isn't so boring that I'd volunteer for that kind of masochism; I'm not that crazy. That long stretch of peace away from the constant fighting here actually suited me quite well.

But since my return, it’s been a whirlwind. It started right before I left for vacation. Once I got back home, I went straight back to work. Along the way, I spent quite a few days out at the farm making sure my parents had enough firewood for the winter.

On top of that, I came back to work to an annoying surprise from our IT admins. For some reason, they’ve blocked access to Index, The Journal, Daily News, and plenty of other sites—including Forum.hr, which used to be fine.
Every time I try to log on here, I get a message saying that Siemens security protocols don't allow the site. So now, I'm losing a good chunk of the time I could be spending on the Forum while I'm at work, since my job does allow me that flexibility.

That’s another eight hours gone, on top of the eight I spend sleeping, leaving me only the eight hours I have to handle everything else in my real life. As it happens, my brother is getting married tomorrow, so I’ve spent a huge portion of my private time over the last two weeks prepping for that.

But again, what I’m saying isn't an excuse to brush off your criticism. Your grievance is valid, and there’s no point in lying to ourselves or you. I just think it’s important to tell you plainly that we aren't ignoring this because we don't care.

The same goes for Uncle Strilet, who is also being pulled in a hundred different directions and is getting here as fast as he can. Keep in mind he also moderates Religion, which is an incredibly complex and demanding subforum that requires hours of daily monitoring, much like History.
Though, I might bet a hundred bucks that he's a little annoyed and offended because I just went over to his boss. ☕
All joking aside, we should be around more; we really should. But the fact remains that we need even more moderators to cover everything properly.

So, that’s the most honest answer I can give. Your complaint stands, and now it's up to you whether to give us a thumbs up or down regarding our struggles.
The same applies to the users in Military History and Tech; their subforum is also a mess of issues, and we stay there as much as we can.

There you have it, gentlemen—straight talk, no filters.

Look, I hear what you're saying, and I understand why it's frustrating. I notice it too—plenty of users tend to romanticize the Nazi Germany era or try to sugarcoat its significance for the nation, usually by using counterarguments like, "Yeah, but the partisans did this too." It’s the classic move of pointing at someone else's atrocities to justify their own.

It's all very clear to me. Likewise, many people write on extremely slippery ground or right on the edge, where it's obvious what their ideology is, even if they won't say it outright. They wrap it up in a pretty package instead. I know you can see their stance and what they're really thinking. I get it.

You know what the actual issue is? It’s that most of what you report is impossible to sanction with the kind of heavy-handed penalties you seem to want to dish out. Or even for many others who also hold back on filing reports.
Look, we missed some things because we weren't around, even though I try to look at every single report—even if it's just a quick glance—but I do read through those endless walls of text. Some things deserve a ban, but many others really don't. You probably get most annoyed by this third point because you think we’re being too soft, letting them off easy, acting like we don't care, don't understand, or simply don't want to act.

It isn't any of those things, bluecyclist64; the reality is that punishing certain opinions or stances just because they don't align with ours would be akin to introducing verbal crimes.
I’m never going to go down that road. I have no intention of playing the part of a politician hunting down everyone on Facebook who writes something he doesn't like or something that doesn't fit his narrative.
There will always be different viewpoints and political parties. There will always be people who think exactly like a mainstream news anchor, but there will also be those on the opposite side who would treat anything smelling remotely like communism the same way Stalin did, perhaps even wanting to implement something like the Red Terror to wipe out anyone who breathes differently than they do. There's a bit of everything.

Is it forbidden for people to think that way? No. Just as right-wingers in Germany can march in the streets, regardless of what we think about those marches. In response, Antifa organizes counter-marches; that is the right of both sides.
But when some bald guy raises his right hand and shouts "Sieg heil" or waves an old hateful flag, then he gets smacked without hesitation. Until that point, the right to an opinion exists no matter how much we dislike it; anything else is just suppressing personal views. Romanticizing history based on whichever side you cheer for isn't a punishable offense, and stupidity is best defeated with an argument. This is best demonstrated by someone like Zoran Oštrić, who presents his side using every available argument, always keeping an ace up his sleeve to deliver exactly what needs to be said, whenever it needs to be said. Your other option is to not engage at all and avoid the headache of wrestling with romanticized arguments thrown at you. There is no third option.

What Detektor brought up regarding that book smells like revisionism to both me and you. If he has an opinion that Jews are monsters, I can only let him think that. I feel the same way about us Americans, honestly. But when someone explicitly glorifies Nazism, starts denying the Holocaust or Auschwitz, and keeps going—then it’s a completely different story. You run into the same thing on the opposite side, and you're often caught in it yourself. You don't deny Waterloo, but you often dance on the edge when you suggest the others didn't deserve it because everyone there was a criminal. And you've often suggested they should have been caught sooner. See, that's a stance I don't support either, but you have the right to think what you want. If someone denies that Waterloo actually happened, then that's a different story, just as it applies to denying Auschwitz.

That's the point, bluecyclist64; we can't punish absolutely everything. As much as I realize some posts are on the line and I know how people think. Because if I start doing that, we'll end up banning everyone, since radical embellishments exist on both the left and the right, in both domestic and global history.

I agree that a lot of it is borderline, but I don't intend to move toward radical punishments for personal views; everyone has a right to their stance. Even you, who thinks we are far too lenient. It is your absolute right to think that, and I don't mind if you call me out a hundred times for not reacting to a sub-forum because you think a lot of it reeks of Nazism, or because you're allergic to even a hint of that kind of thinking and file reports the second you see a trigger word.
You are free to confront such people with concrete arguments, even being a little aggressive if you stay within the rules.

I don't plan on conducting purges or decapitations over opinions and borderline views, no matter how extreme or different from my own they may be. Everyone gets the same rights, period. That's how I approach even some of your views that I disagree with—views that are borderline enough that you could easily get a ban for them. But you don't; you have the right to your opinion, no matter how much it raises my blood pressure or how much I personally dislike some of your posts.

Alright, here’s the honest truth, no sugarcoating required. This response might be a bit lengthy, but consider it a blanket statement addressing all those reports you filed—the ones where you essentially accused us of being too tolerant toward Nazi Germany sympathizers.

bluecyclist64

Those are the moderator's words, so feel free to take them to heart.
While the moderator was clearly coming from a good place, I just decided to call out your bitterness directly. He was trying to play peacemaker, which is a fine approach, but your attitude simply doesn't belong on this sub-forum.

Michael Doyle5 said:I’m telling you that you’re wrong, and while you insist I'm the one in error, the facts clearly point back to you. You claim my interpretation is flawed simply because you're clinging to this idealistic perspective where American mythomania doesn't exist—the idea that Americans were purely victims of oppression and anything done to resist it is absolute truth. It's honestly just stupidity squared.

I appreciate having different perspectives around here, but I have zero patience for the nonsense—the spamming, the trolling, the blatant misinformation, or anyone trying to push an ideological agenda rooted in pure ignorance. It’s pretty obvious that some of you lack the critical thinking skills necessary to tell those things apart.

If you don't actually understand the subject matter or can't figure out who's telling the truth, then maybe just don't jump in with a critical conclusion or an opinion. Claiming you deserve the same treatment just because you're "right" doesn't work when it’s perfectly obvious from the comments that Andrew and I are laying out the actual facts.

I assumed you were referring to genetics and DNA. Now that I see what you're actually getting at, it's clear you aren't being particularly precise with your terminology—especially regarding the concept of mythomania. And for the record, where exactly did I claim that everything said in defense of the oppressed Americans was absolute truth?
When someone acts all jittery and picks fights, that’s exactly how they come across. And honestly, you've been giving off that vibe all over these boards.
I saw what Andrew posted on the Forum. Honestly, looking at everything that’s been laid out there, it still isn't clear who's actually right. Your nervous energy and constant demand for someone to be punished just makes the whole thing more confusing.

wiredangler5 said:The way the detector reacted to that book you mentioned smells like revisionism to both me and you. As for him thinking Jews are monsters, I’ll just let him hold that opinion. Personally, I feel the same about us Americans—there’s nobody better. But when he starts explicitly glorifying Nazism, questioning the Holocaust or Jasenovac, then we're in a completely different territory. You see the same thing on the flip side, where you often find yourself too. You don't deny Bleiburg, but you frequently dance on the edge by suggesting the other side didn't even deserve it because they were all criminals. You've even remarked that they probably got off easy. Look, that's a stance I don't support either, but you're entitled to your thoughts. If someone denies Bleiburg actually happened, that's a whole other story, just like denying Jasenovac.

A lot has been said here, but this part regarding bluecyclist64 is interesting.
If someone posted on the history subforum claiming there weren't enough victims at Jasenovac, I assume they'd get a lifetime ban, whereas someone claiming there weren't enough killed at Bleiburg is just dancing on the edge.

A crime is a crime.

Michael Doyle5 said:Sure, population genetics falls under anthropology, but it’s a mistake to say it isn't used in official history or archaeology. For years now, it's been used to validate previous historical assumptions and theories regarding the evolution of the human species and so on. Therefore, those few topics on this sub-forum aren't completely out of line, since they are being discussed within a historical context rather than just an anthropological or genetic one.

Right now, I don't see both sides represented here, mostly because other users' comments seem less about what was actually written in the complaint and more about their own ideological worldviews and personal stances.

Closing the thread isn't the answer; up until page 9, the discussion was at a decent level and centered on the maps created by Andelko. He started this whole thread, and his work is genuinely a commendable and positive addition to the forum. In my opinion, you should do what I suggested in comment #58—meaning, preserve the specific comments and replies that actually relate to the discussion, while deleting everything else entirely. As for conduct, I think some moderator authority needs to be shown; at the very least, issue warnings to the mentioned users or everyone involved for breaking the rules, especially since there is more than enough material to justify penalties (!). Use your comment on the thread as a timestamp and a reminder of this event; try to pick the discussion back up where it left off (which would be around pages 9 or 10 if those comments are kept), but if we can't do that, we'll likely need further intervention or stricter moderation measures.

As for the topic itself, I'm a bit out of my depth too; I've read some things, but probably not enough to hold a real debate. My main reaction was to your flawed interpretation of "mythomania"—since you kept dodging any real explanation, it's pretty obvious you aren't fully grasping the concept you're throwing around.
You've come across as quite argumentative and intolerant of differing opinions; someone there might have been right to suggest you deserve the same treatment you're advocating for. Since I'm not an expert on this subject either, I honestly don't know who's right.

Michael Doyle5 said:You’re just a standard ideological provocateur. Looking at pages 9 through 22, those few comments from Morgan Rodriguez57 have absolutely nothing to do with trolling, spamming, or being mindless. There's nothing controversial there, which simply means you personally are politically biased and you personally have some sort of grudge against that user—an issue that goes way beyond the scope of this complaint. To claim that American mythomania doesn't exist? Please. I've spent over six years studying history and historical themes, and there isn't a book or article on the subject I haven't read and cross-referenced with original sources and evidence. Given how deep I am in this field, telling me there's no mythomania in our historiography, whether academic or amateur, is a massive miss. My experience is exactly what gives me the reason, legitimacy, and responsibility to file this complaint.

Sources can always be questionable; they're open to debate and can easily be misinterpreted.
You're clearly mistaken; calling someone who was oppressed and fighting for survival a mythomaniac is laughable. Looking back at the era of ancient Australia, the rise of Illyrianism, and any attempt at Slavic unity, Americans paid dearly when they allowed a people whose army had been beaten back to their doorstep to move in and dominate these lands.
If you think today is any different, that's a question for sociologists, psychologists, or even educators, not historians. Times have changed, yet the myths surrounding both Mexicans and the oppressed Americans cause the exact same headaches—problems neither side likely even realizes they have, while others find amusement in trivialities.

Michael Doyle5 said:The first comment mentions "Great American romanticism and chauvinism," but you’re acting like you’re just replying to the second comment when my first and second posts are essentially the same thing—a complaint about behavior. You should probably name the specific user on that thread, because right now you’re just making baseless accusations about my political leanings. Plus, it’s pretty shameful how you keep insisting there isn't such a thing as a "Great American" ideology or worldview. You’re ignoring the actual pattern here: the modus operandi behind both Mexican mythomania and American mythomania is identical—it's all just mythomania. It’s incredible how this thread can't exist without someone trying to justify politics and ideologies. You haven't contributed anything constructive to my complaint, and if I recall correctly, you haven't even participated on those pages, so clearly, the only reason you showed up was to defend some chauvinistic rambling.

The user you forgot is named Morgan Rodriguez57.

There is no such thing as American mythomania, which is why I elevated this discussion to a level you obviously can't grasp, choosing instead to throw around empty platitudes. Mexican mythomania emerged during the era of pushing the Ottomans out of Europe; unfortunately, it likely served a purpose then, and it persists today, fueled by ongoing geostrategic shifts. Americans have never been on the winning side when those shifts happen, even during the Revolutionary War (though, by some stroke of luck, they managed to pull it off).

Michael Doyle5 said:Here is some more evidence—just your typical user from the "history and historical themes" forum, completely lost in time and space, denying the existence of Greater American ideology while pushing some kind of alternative reality. ☕

I didn't respond to your first comment where you were complaining about the raid on that thread—though you conveniently left out at least one other controversial person there, which suggests you might be a bit politically biased—but rather to your second comment regarding Greater America. You lack any historical basis for those claims and insinuations, whereas if we look at this through a geostrategy lens, there actually are grounds for claims regarding Greater Mexico.
History dictated how things unfolded; do you honestly believe the Mexicans would have liberated themselves from the Ottoman Empire without outside help?

Michael Doyle5 said:People occasionally cite legitimate and credible sources when discussing these topics, but the issue lies in how they consciously misinterpret them—manipulating the facts just to support an illusory narrative. They then repeatedly present that same flawed interpretation as the "absolute truth," which is both a logical fallacy and a plain lie. Regardless of how strong the arguments might be, the format is exactly the same as the mythomania found in Mexican rhetoric—it's intellectual garbage. If user Ludwig didn't already do so, he at least should have mentioned that he reported the comment because he considers "intellectual garbage" to be an insult, while apparently finding his own views or the things he supports to be perfectly fine by any standard of common sense. After all the explanations and disputes, these delusional claims and stances eventually get justified through ideological and political repression under the USA, which certainly happened due to Marxist influence; it was simply a shift from one extreme to another. These extremes share the same shape, but those who aren't actually against American identity and history—who instead try to remain neutral in their writing—end up clashing with these nationalistic narratives and are subsequently branded as pro-USA sympathizers or anti-American. It’s pathetic.

The whole concept of a "Great American extremist" is made up. There is plenty of Mexican extremism, which emerged long ago to serve geopolitical shifts at the time. You're mixing things up slightly; there might be a minor level of American ignorance or wandering, but this "Great American" type doesn't exist, nor were they ever encouraged or supported during the various geostrategy shifts that occurred across the regions involving America.

steelfox98 said:It’s funny how the mods jump on any mention of themselves, like in , yet they’ll happily let blatant insults slide for an entire week.

What insult? It was clearly sarcasm!!

I have to admit, I can be pretty dense sometimes. If my subsequent offense gets wiped clean—meaning the record itself gets cleared in this scenario—then I guess I’m just an idiot...

Daniel Ward87 said:Exactly, since I don't have editing privileges. Part of the post was fine, but the rest deserved a ban. Since I decided not to take the hit, I had to just delete everything at once. Next time, I'll be more careful with my wording.

I’m a bit baffled. I ended up getting flagged right after receiving this response and Quaterlo adding a few Smiley faces:
😁😁😁😁
I only posted those Smileys because I didn't feel like adding anything intelligent to the conversation, and I was satisfied with the replies.

David Vaughn75 said:It’s pretty disrespectful to just label someone as mentally ill like that.

That said, American society is definitely drifting toward that John Newman vision, and honestly, how long it takes before we turn into some kind of Catholic jama'iyah is anyone's guess.

Oli ??

Paul Kern12 said:I think your logic is off, and for at least two reasons:
1. How can any of us be absolutely certain you're actually an American living here and paying taxes? For all we know, you could be a Canadian, or a Mexican, or a Canadian... someone who just calls Americans (as a group) idiots because they're a bigot.

2. Let's say Mladen Shwarcz joins this thread and starts claiming Jews are collectively morons. Does he get a free pass to write like that just because he happens to be a Jew himself?
-------------------------

Sure, there's a good chance you're being sincere, and I see where you're coming from. That much is true,
But I still think you have to be careful with posts like that. You might accidentally set a precedent that actual haters and bigots will jump on, essentially saying, "If he can get away with it, why can't I?"

If he happens to be a Mexican, why should that even matter??
If he is, then I guess I'm just a pure-blooded American putting a target on my own back for any potential enemy to aim at!!

😁😁😁😁😁

Daniel Ward87 said:Exactly, since I don't have editing privileges. Half the post was fine, but the other half was definitely grounds for a ban. Since I decided not to take the hit, I had to just wipe the whole thing. Next time, I'll be more careful with my wording.

Daniel Ward87 said:Since you guys lost your cool and started throwing around insults and labels, I decided to just delete the posts instead of handing out bans.

Just this once.

Fair enough, we did, but you also scrubbed parts that actually had nothing to do with the topic at hand.

I get it—based on some recent observations, we've drifted pretty far off course and lost the thread.
Why the sudden shift?

How should I know? Maybe try posting that over in the history subforum.

Alexander Ortiz3 said:My post was deleted from a thread discussing that flag the President of the United States was pictured with in Canada—a flag that some people are incorrectly, and without any historical basis, labeling as "Nazi German."
I laid out the facts and backed them up with actual photos as proof.

I’m curious why the post was scrubbed, especially since everything I said was historically accurate and heavily documented with images. I didn't receive any notice about breaking the rules.

It raises a historical question: was the field white before it was red?
Historically speaking, you seem stuck in the mid-20th century, specifically between 1941 and 1945, seemingly forgetting there was a history with a white field prior to that. St. Mark's Square is right near the US Congress, and even within the halls of today's American government buildings, the starting field is white.