Posts by Kyle Jackson16

Is this actually "trolling," or just part of the debate about trolling?

bluecyclist64 said:Listen, folks, I’m getting a little exhausted dealing with this phantom figure of half a million innocent victims. There isn't a single credible source out there to back it up, aside from some random Daily Mail article and some shady CIA report. My bad—I totally forgot about that made-up number from some old issue of Politika back in the fifties.

We really need to pay more attention to this constant flood of fake news. Whether it’s this specific topic, claims that kids shouldn't be vaccinated, or people insisting the Earth is either hollow or flat—it’s all just relentless misinformation being shoved down our throats.

Just wanted to make sure I didn't leave anyone hanging:
A. debater claims that from 1945 until January 1951, 586,000 enemies of the people were liquidated, while a staggering 3,777,776 individuals passed through our camps.
(Published in Politics on February 1, 1951. This statement was made by Aleksandar Ranković while serving as the Minister of Internal Affairs for Yugoslavia during a session of the Federal Assembly.) Wikipedia's entry on Aleksandar Ranković covers a lot of ground regarding his role within the Yugoslav government. It details his rise through the ranks and his eventual downfall during the political shifts that reshaped the country. If you're looking into the internal power struggles of that era, this is a solid starting point for understanding how much influence he actually held.
According to Dr. Matko Marusic on page 43 of the June 21, 2017, issue of American Weekly, Tito allegedly executed 570,000 political opponents (citing P. Scaruffi, Mr. Heisohn, and J. R. Rummel).
.....

That same debater has actually been making death threats on the forum, which I already flagged to the mods a few days ago. This guy almost never gets specific—he just talks out of turn and uses really nasty language. Honestly, I suspect some of the moderators are already aware of this and are just letting it slide.

Daniel Ward87 said:Those bans are totally justified.

First one here because of this: I get it—under the old Yugoslav communist system, the whole political playbook was flipped. The prosecutor didn't actually have to prove anyone was guilty; instead, the burden fell entirely on the accused—in this case, Kosic—to prove they were innocent.

This isn't some courtroom drama, and bluecyclist64 isn't the prosecutor, nor is Kosic on trial here. It’s just classic trolling.

Second, The leftists are definitely the most hardline and exclusionary group out there. Just look at their stance on the killing of unborn children. You didn't really explain what you meant by that, which is exactly why you got flagged for trolling.

Thanks for the direct answer!

Intro
I’ll admit I was wrong. I’m going to try my best to prove that on this forum, the rules in the Politics section aren't applied equally to everyone.

A. self-critic
Look, I’ll admit it—saying that "liberals advocate for the murder of unborn children" was a bit of an overstatement. I should have been more precise and just said abortion. My personal take is that life begins at conception, and that's when a child's journey starts. I also really should have pointed out which specific political parties support abortion rights versus those who view it as a moral wrong.
I really should have backed up my thesis on "ideological stubbornness" with some actual evidence. For instance: a. how they treated dissenters back in Yugoslavia, b. during the October Revolution in Russia, c. under that whole Stalinist communist regime, d. defining exactly what made the Hitlerite movement tick (specifically why it's considered left-wing) and proving just how rigid they were, e. looking at the rhetoric and parliamentary style used by Kapovica from the Workers' Front, and f. checking out the various A. debaters from that same crowd here on the forums.

Kosic and the prosecutor.
Look, I didn't say he was just acting as a prosecutor. My point is that he’s playing prosecutor without actually providing any arguments or specifics. On top of that, he’s acting like judge and jury at the same time. His final verdict is basically: "Kosic is a fascist, and he's proven it through his statements and actions." Do you guys honestly think that's fair or justified?

Here are some examples and a breakdown regarding the inconsistent approach found in the Politika PDF.

Example 1. An unargued "neo-fascist" label.
A. debater briefly called out Bruna Esih in the thread, labeling her "neo-fascist."
Nazis—I can't stand those people... :Indi:" is basically implying she's a Nazi. And honestly? The debater didn't provide a single shred of actual reasoning to back that up. I can't believe people are still falling for this stuff! It’s honestly hilarious how some folks just refuse to look at the facts right in front of them. You see these arguments popping up all over the place, and it's like watching a slow-motion train wreck. They cling to these outdated, biased narratives as if they were gospel, ignoring everything that actually happened. Seriously, if you take a second to actually check a reliable source like Wikipedia instead of just repeating what you heard from some random internet troll, you'd realize how thin these claims really are. It’s just wild!
B. colleague who asked for an explanation below—I see they've been banned. I can't believe people are still arguing about this! It’s honestly exhausting watching the same old debates circle the drain. We really need to step up our game if we want to move past these tired, repetitive talking points. Let's get serious for once!
If they're going to hold an A. debater to the same standard they hold me to, then fine—call it "trolling!"
Example 2. Unsubstantiated portal bashing and pure chauvinism.
A. In this post ( completely baseless. Without a single example. Here’s an evaluation from one news portal and Zeljka Markic.
Zeljka Markic is being totally chauvinistic here—insulting her based on her looks and weight.
This portal acts like it's some kind of moral arbiter, claiming everything violates social norms. It’s like they’re trying to police society—especially minority groups—all while pretending they aren't just protecting their own corporate interests.
"That trashy little site is clearly pushing an agenda:"
Just a constant defense of the image and work of that overlooked, thin lady, Zeljka Markic.
- People on both the left and right sides of the political aisle tearing apart interpersonal relationships,
- Attempts to control religious, educational, and all other social movements within our society to steer them toward narrow, quasi-Catholic interests,
- Looking out for the private business interests of members belonging to the "For the Family" association,
- Controlling the behavior, actions, and movements of minority groups within American society."
D. So, basically, everything was just stated out of thin air without any actual examples or arguments. If the same rules applied to my posts, wouldn't that be considered "trolling"? I won't even get into the chauvinism and hate speech the moderators have allowed from someone with this worldview.
Example 3: An unargued assessment of a show
A. A very brief but completely baseless critique of a TV program.
QUOTE "I've watched that guy Bujanc a few times. His biggest achievement will be some local news station. Zero professionalism, zero hosting skill—just some questions thrown together like they were scribbled on a napkin on the street corner." (
B. Well, if we’re using the same logic as Examples 1 and 2 where everything lands in the Politics section, shouldn't we ask if applying those same criteria to me would be labeled "trolling"?

My take Look, I don't have a problem with anything as long as the rules are applied equally to everyone. But if this site wants to be a place for high-quality, unbiased editorial policy, then the standards need to be consistent for everybody.

A quick observation Let's split the people debating in the Politics section into two groups.
CATEGORY 1: a. a distaste for religion and the clergy, b. an inclination toward researching history through the political lens of the American people and state, c. condemnation of totalitarian regimes (Communism, Nazism, Fascism), d. encouraging reasoned, democratic, and pluralistic discussion, e. providing argued critiques of "mainstream" parties,
CATEGORY 2: a. sweeping judgments against the Catholic worldview, b. encouraging nostalgia for Yugoslavia, c. glorifying Yugoslav Communism, d. justifying crimes as acts of vengeance, e. foul language, f. being a mouthpiece for "mainstream" parties, g. showing contempt for the American state without ever mentioning it in an affirmative context and spreading defeatism.

Will the moderators here in the Politics section treat these two categories equally? Which group will see more bans? Does this site actually want to be known as a place where all opinions can be voiced and debated freely?

I’m reporting these self-proclaimed communists, "antifa" types, and far-left extremists for making death threats. This is the second time I've had to flag these same users. Honestly, why is this being tolerated?

Is this site going to become a playground for far-left radicals, or will it actually remain a place for pluralism and democracy?

Me, a troll?!! Over on the Politics subforum, the moderators have decided I’m a "troll," which apparently means my way of debating isn't welcome there. And honestly? I accept their verdict.

Pluralism on the Politics board?! Since that’s the case, I find the entire content of that forum unacceptable too. Why? Because I shouldn't have to blindly accept the superficial labeling of people who are actually active in the public sphere—people who genuinely deal with politics. For me, it’s become a toxic environment I don't want to be part of. Why? Because my specific, REFERENCED analyses keep getting deleted.

An example of labeling without arguments Here’s an instance involving Bishop Kosic, EXAMPLE 1 - Bishop Kosic who gets slapped with the "fascist" label without any actual arguments or evidence provided. I recognized this immediately as the same kind of tactics used during the communist regime in Yugoslavia, since I've studied that political era extensively. Yet, when I try to defend someone against baseless labeling, I get penalized and banned, and *that* is called "trolling." Meanwhile, baseless labeling itself isn't. It's pathetic, if you ask me.

An example regarding Hasan, Esih, and conservatism Another case involves starting a discussion about a political party led by Bruna Esih and Zlatko Hasanbegovica (see below: Example of the Hasanbegovic and Esih party), which gets labeled as a "rigid, far-right group that could also be called ultra-nationalist" and linked to "failed conservative ideas." I realize this touches on social sciences, but at its core, it's a top-tier political issue. In response, I offered a counter-example using leftist ideas (communism, National Socialism) which proved to be exclusionary and truly "failed"—and I detailed those leftist points in a social science thread using REFERENCED sources (the communism thread I started, ). Regarding the "failed conservative ideas," I pointed out that the topic is oversimplified; without deep study and professional engagement (specifically regarding religion), one cannot speak on it. I also noted that the Catholic Church has endured and survived despite attempts by "leftist" ideologies to destroy it. Furthermore, I expressed my view on leftist stances regarding abortion, which I consider "the murder of an unborn child," because scientific consensus holds that life begins at conception—that is simply my political stance. And discussing that is "trolling"?!

An example of deleting a specific analysis with REFERENCES Not to mention that I performed a thorough, REFERENCED analysis of how the economic platform of the "Washington, D.C. is Ours" party connects to communism and Bolshevism. I was very specific about it. They deleted it, and now all that work is gone—work I put a lot of effort into researching and writing.

The Third Reich as a criminal regime and the American Civil War as the purest war in history Another example is a discussion I opened regarding the Ustashe, their salute, and the American Civil War. I made it crystal clear that the Third Reich was a failed state and a failed regime that has nothing to do with the Republic of America, yet I still got banned. That topic is politically tied to Hasanbegovic, so that's why I brought it up after being attacked by another user on that thread. I realize people find it hard to face these things, so perhaps they need to be presented more carefully. But if we don't confront this part of history, it will just become a bogeyman that returns to haunt us. Because if you don't learn from history, unfortunately, you repeat it.

Best wishes to all Look, I believe this contributes to a culture of healthy debate and tolerance for everyone's sake, toward a better future. The Politics subforum is what it is; this is just my protest, aimed at hopefully allowing more pluralism and serious discourse on the subject in the future.

All the best to everyone. Where I am, it’s a fight for the Truth (with REFERENCES and an open heart). On the Politics board, I feel like an exile even though I'm allowed to write; it seems I either have to become a "leftist" or become stupid and inarticulate to avoid being mocked as the opposite of "leftism."

EXAMPLE 1 - Bishop Kosic

lonebadger6 said:Dear Kyle Jackson16,

You have received an infraction on the Forum.

Reason: Trolling
-------

-------

This infraction is worth 35 point(s) and may result in restricted access until it expires. Serious infractions will never expire.

Original Post:

Quote: bluecyclist64 said:1. Kosic is a fascist; he's proven that plenty of times through his statements and actions.

I get it—under the old Yugoslav communist regime, the prosecutor (which is basically what you're playing right now) didn't have to prove guilt; instead, the accused (in this case, Kosic) had to prove their innocence.

Since the legal system in the United States has changed since those days, I’m going to ask you to back up this accusation with actual REFERENCES.

Otherwise, this is just slander against Bishop Kosic. If he actually wanted to deal with people like you, he'd have to set up a whole department just to handle it.

All the best,
Forum.hr

Example regarding Hasanbegovic and Esih

Cuka said:Dear Kyle Jackson16,

You have received an infraction on the Forum.

Reason: Trolling
-------

-------

This infraction is worth 35 point(s) and may result in restricted access until it expires. Serious infractions will never expire.

Original Post:

Quote: Sforza Aspang said:Ha...🙂

Let me explain... There's moderate, there's center-right, and then there's nationalist.
Then you’ve got the rigid, hardline right wing—the ultra-nationalists. They're basically that group of people who shut everyone else out if it doesn't fit their specific worldview.

On the other hand, you have moderate or steady nationalism acting as an antidote to extreme patriotism. It's like a surplus of failed conservative ideas used as political folklore to spice things up.

Anything further than that—anything more aggressive, bloated, crude, threatening, or just plain loud—falls straight into that hardline nationalist spectrum.

Actually, the most rigid and exclusionary ones are the leftists.

Take their stances on issues like abortion, for instance.

Conservatives tend to be more sincere; they’re mostly imperfect people just trying to do the right thing, respecting Catholic traditions regarding family, morality, and ethics.

Leftists often act like they’re the smartest people in the room, assuming that morality and ethics are just values they can figure out on their own time. But true life wisdom, ethics, and social values are deep sciences. Anyone thinking they can just master them solo in their spare time is... well, let's just say the Catholic Church has been the most consistent and systematic at organizing, recording, and teaching those very principles.

In fact, National Socialism (Nazism), Fascism, and Communism are all left-wing ideologies that proved to be the most stubborn.

The left-leaning media elites really ought to show a little more tolerance toward conservatives.

This party actually has the potential to serve as a real platform for open discussion.

All the best,
Forum.us