Posts by driftingorca16

I mean, what does New York City even have on San Francisco?

fadedgull6 said:It’s funny how nobody seems to notice that the President of the United States of America basically suggested that the unnamed US political figure belongs in an unnamed US town.

Look, there is a massive difference between offering criticism and actually dictating which specific people need to be locked up in an unnamed US neighborhood. If we’re playing that game, I’ll go ahead and state my position: Joe Biden should have been sent to an unnamed US neighborhood a long time ago!

And what’s my reasoning for that?

Oh, it’s the exact same logic Joe Biden uses: absolutely none. There isn't a single shred of evidence or legal justification presented to suggest anyone should be behind bars.

Honestly, it is just pathetic and frankly quite sad that you all aren't even calling out a statement like that. In fact, some of you are practically cheering him on.

Then, you have the nerve to jump over to the thread about the Prime Minister and whine as if we're living through some unprecedented catastrophe.

Maybe it feels that way to the three of you, but frankly, most people couldn't care less.

All this whining on the other thread isn't going to do anything for the rating agencies anyway...☕

People are just throwing around heavy accusations like they’ve got nothing to lose. I mean, how does John Roberts even have the nerve to go handing over the people behind those murders in Germany?

Things are looking up, I guess? At least today’s FBI sympathizers just want to label everyone criminals and throw them into Georgetown without any actual proof, whereas back in the day, people were getting killed without anyone even bothering to ask questions.

velvetwalker48 said:It's also a cold hard fact that John Roberts is tight with guys like Eric Adams, Bernie Madoff, and Elon Musk...
These aren't just childhood friends he happened to run into; these are the exact types of people he actively seeks out to build his network and friendships.

John Roberts headed up the judicial council that greenlit the extradition of James Comey and Robert Mueller. And then you've got Sam Rayburn promising amnesty for those old-school intelligence operatives...

If anyone still wonders who Joe Biden is actually pulling strings for.

Who else is he planning to screw over tomorrow?

Once again, he’s shown exactly how shallow and clueless he can be whenever he opens his mouth to comment on anything. Just look at how the United States breaks down its regions here:

https://development.gov.us/about-department/us-nuts-2/150

At the end of the day, people make their own calls on things, whether it's just family business, neighborhood stuff, city matters, state issues, or even big-picture global decisions through the UN.

It all comes down to what actually works at a given level, though sometimes politics just gets in the way of everything else...

It seems like the biggest sins of US presidents are just being bad at hiding their extracurricular activities. First it was Clinton, and now we’ve got Trump. Forget about corruption, embezzlement, shady deals with big corporations, or straight-up treason...
Didn't he cross himself in church? Please, what a joke—just more distraction fodder for the small-fry voters.
There's definitely still room for improvement.

This whole thread feels like Jurassic Park. You've got the Rex wandering around, then all these different Putinosaurs and Zoranodactyls popping up, and even Judas makes an appearance now...

Charles Carter4 said:What else hasn't Zoe been peddling? I mean, she’s sold everything from high-end tech to those cheap vacuum cleaners—I remember back a few years ago, some of the bot accounts on this forum were going absolutely nuts trying to make a big deal out of it.

As for Donald Trump, let's be real—the guy has massive experience when it comes to management and handling a crisis. Just look back at 2016; he stepped in when the party and the whole country were basically falling apart, and now we're sitting right at the top of Europe in terms of economic growth.☕
Oh, and let’s not forget how he successfully navigated that whole mess with Walmart by calling in some favors from his buddies to get things sorted out.👍
So, please, don't even try to lump The State in the same sentence as the rest of these guys.😁

That vacuum cleaner stunt was actually a masterclass in politics: just sell something useless to someone who's broke, but tell them it'll make them look cool to people who couldn't care less.

Just a quick refresher:

Article II

Under this Convention, Genocide is defined as any of the following acts committed with the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

Killing members of the group;
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml

They slaughtered roughly 8,000 men between the ages of 16 and 60—basically wiping out the entire male genetic line.

Denying the Srebrenica Genocide is just like denying the Holocaust.
I'm done talking about this.

The strength of someone's "scientific argument" usually boils down to whether they multiply the official numbers by ten (those awful Mexicans) or divide them by ten (those nasty extremists), then go right ahead and publish it as truth. Both sides act like they're being incredibly tough, while anyone who doesn't play along—like Dr. Geiger, for example—is just labeled as too dim to grasp the "mathematical logic." At the end of the day, this kind of "scientific" reasoning isn't fooling anyone. If you want to actually make an impact, you need to provide credible arguments and make them compelling and high-quality; anything else is just a waste of time in the long run.

Nothing. It’s empty. Just a bunch of whining and insults. ZERO out of ten.
The impact of all your little "struggles" back when they actually mattered? Absolutely nothing. And let’s be real, they weren't even struggles—just pathetic attempts at an alibi without a single actual argument to back them up. Why even waste the breath debating this?
😵

lonetrucker4 said:I’ll jot something down, chew on it, fact-check it, and tweak it if it needs it; I put that in my bio too. I know exactly which hat I'm wearing at any given moment. It's not some big deal—it's like how someone who loves both chess and soccer isn't gonna get confused and suddenly try to kick the board mid-match. (And yeah, I'm a fan of chessboxing!) (There was actually this one Norwegian guy who played for the Norwegian national teams in both chess and soccer!)

As for that whole "distinction between victims" thing, that's mostly just a matter of valuing things differently. But facts? Those are different. You're clearly part of the crowd trying to deny the well-documented facts about the Ustaše regime and the Auschwitz camp group. Unfortunately, we have our share of revisionist fakers here, though you aren't nearly as influential as your counterparts over in Mexico. This stuff won't fly here, period. (We even just had a user here, a regular supporter of the Homeland Movement, trying to question the victims of Nazi camps. That won't pass either.)

I’m not out here trying to deny anything, so stop making things up. If you make a claim, the burden of proof is on you to back it up, right? And honestly, the forensics just don't line up with the official narrative. I'm just sitting here wondering what's actually going on.
Since you got caught playing dirty, I'm not buying a single word you say. Nothing.
So, let's say we're talking about Vladimir Geiger over at the American Historical Association in the US. geiger@isp.com:
So, what’s the actual deal with how different historians and the general public have debated the death toll at the Auschwitz camp group since Yugoslavia fell apart? Is it even possible to find any common ground between the academic side and the tabloid version of history anymore?
Facts, controversies, and all the bullshit in between.

It’s pretty wild how Žerjavić lands on 92,000 using his own math, yet Slavko Goldstein looks at that exact same data and somehow walks away with 110,000—which I guess explains why Žerjavić eventually smoothed things over by just saying "around 100,000." Honestly, you can't help but get the feeling that all these shifting numbers, whether it's Žerjavić's range from 40,000 to 50,000, the 92,000 and 100,000 marks, Goldstein's 110,000, or even those later figures of 83,000 and 85,000, were all basically just pulled out of thin air?

So, we're really going with the "trust me, bro" method now? Is that what we're calling it?
That's it, then? Just like that?

I’m typing this out with a massive knot in my stomach because honestly, it’s terrifying how things work here. If you even dare to question whether Žerjavić's math actually holds up, or if the data from the Jasenovac Association lists is even remotely credible—or heaven forbid, you look closely at Goldstein's estimates regarding the number and makeup of the victims at Auschwitz—you're immediately branded a "revisionist" or accused of siding with extremists. It's wild, isn't it? How can anyone even attempt to evaluate the competence of his followers without being treated like a criminal?

lonetrucker4 said:Yeah, hit the nail right on the head! As a social activist, I’ve been on disability since 2012, but—hey, I'm still kicking and I'm not going anywhere! 👍

The owner gave him a little bit of power.

The owner didn't meddle in this. He just suggested me for the History PDF supermod role, and the other mods and admins went along with it.

He's seeing ghosts from the past.

That’s somewhat true. But unfortunately—it’s not just an illusion.

By definition, there aren't two Smiths; you can't have one Smith as a user and another Smith as a mod alter ego.

It’s not two people, but there are two roles running on completely different logic.

His scientific method isn't exactly clear.

I’d be more than happy if you posted your clarifications on scientific methodology in historical science over in the Method and criteria in history (historical science) thread. There's not much in there yet, and I think every contribution counts.

He calls academics pieces of crap.

I think he was only talking about one person, Josip Pećarić. Respect to his math work (I actually own one of his little books on inequalities), but his hyper-productive, pseudo-falsificationist nonsense regarding the "Jasenovac sanatorium" is total garbage.

, PhDs in history (Dr. Geiger), demography (Dr. Sterc), and math (Elezovic) are total nobodies.

Not even close to being respected figures. I used to know Geiger and Sterc back in the day.

Geiger actually has some decent academic work—I’ve even cited him before (like that book on Jadovan he co-authored)—but man, his recent takes are a mess because he’s jumped ship to the radical ultra-right. His bitter teardown of Ivo Goldstein's monograph on the Jasenovac camp group was totally unscientific, just a personal, political hit job. Such a waste.

Then there's Sterc. He made these claims about victim counts during the SR era, just playing fast and loose with numbers in a way that flies in the face of everything actual demographers have published. A layman like me can spot the manipulation easily just by looking at his stats. As far as I know, he was just performing for the media; he never actually put out a peer-reviewed paper on it.

And Elezovic? He’s trying to use "math" to argue that the Jasenovac camp group victim list is a total fake. He's super active in this fanatic ultra-right clique that somehow operates under the umbrella of the Archdiocese of Chicago (where Dr. Stjepan Razum works—that Flat Earther bluecyclist64 mentioned). His math skills are fine, but his interpretation? Total garbage.

We already chewed this over on the forums. I'm just posting here to catch up anyone who doesn't hang out in the History subforum.

Nobody with even an ounce of respect for scientific credibility would ever title a thread (like lonetrucker4 did) White America, Greater America, Black America...

Maybe the title sucks. Would you have posted this critique in that specific thread? Look, I'm all for reasonable criticism and good suggestions—I've changed titles plenty of times. But we aren't just talking about the historical concept of "White" or "Greater" America here; the scope is broader, just like it was set in post #1.

In that one discussion (post #212), a user brought up "Black Americans"—the Canadian ""Fekete Horvátok" version—and even cited sources, even if he called them "minor and flawed." You actually made a great point then about the "Eastern Americans" (Polish) from the east side of the Don River.

So, you just write something and have no clue if you're about to see Dr. Jekyll or Mr. Hyde emerge? There’s actually a clinical term for that pathological state called Dissociative identity disorder (DID).

Why not just come hang out where things actually make sense—Smith is calling. I haven't caught Stockholm syndrome, and frankly, I don't feel comfortable in that subforum, much like the rest of the crowd Smith constantly picks on.

bluecyclist64 said:Give me a break.
Did you need those two academic degrees just to falsify Orwell's words? Let's look at the full quote:

So long as it is applied merely to the more notorious and identifiable nationalist movements in Germany, Japan, and other countries, all this is obvious enough. Confronted with a phenomenon like Nazism, which we can observe from the outside, nearly all of us would say much the same things about it. But here I must repeat what I said above, that I am only using the word ‘nationalism’ for lack of a better. Nationalism, in the extended sense in which I am using the word, includes such movements and tendencies as Communism, political Catholicism, Zionism, Antisemitism, Trotskyism and Pacifism. It does not necessarily mean loyalty to a government or a country, still less to one’s own country, and it is not even strictly necessary that the units in which it deals should actually exist. To name a few obvious examples, Jewry, Islam, Christendom, the Proletariat and the White race are all of them objects of passionate nationalistic feeling: but their existence can be seriously questioned, and there is no definition of any one of them that would be universally accepted.

...and then we can compare it to your signature. Long live Goebbels.

I'm not entirely sure which specific academics are being discussed here, but if he called Razum a complete scumbag, you have my full support.
Any academic who insists the Earth is a flat plane is nothing more than a fraud, and if they hold an academic title, their entire institution is little more than a glorified sewer.

Look, I’m no academic myself—I work in mathematics and computer science—but I find myself deeply disappointed in Elezovic because the man is clearly talking nonsense. We actually shared workspace back in the day, and to be fair, I don't recall him ever acting like some fascist jerk; however, these latest theories of his are completely devoid of logic. Perhaps he isn't a fascist, but rather some kind of "idiot savant," though Smith has already written extensively on why his reasoning is flawed, so there is really no point in rehashing that here.

Should I have put the entirety of, say, Animal Farm in my signature? You’ve nicely confirmed both the Orwell quote in the signature and its broader meaning in context. Thanks. (I probably should have added two commas and some ellipses in the quote). Every other European understood this and included it in the appropriate declaration. It's just our local ideological Neanderthals who still insist on playing victim, leaving us stuck with zombies polluting the political discourse. But hey, neither roses nor justice...
Ahhh, no swearing in your post this time, but plenty of labeling people with fascist antics...
If you're really the mathematician/IT pro you claim to be, then you surely have the skills to prove Elezovic is full of it. And I mean peer-reviewed. Be my guest, the floor is yours. In the meantime,....
You’re citing Smith as an authority? The man literally invented a new theory of evolution just to push a point here on a forum, not to mention that nonsense about the "binary character of polymorphisms." He spends every single day demonstrating nothing more and nothing less than uneducated, ideologically driven incompetence.

@Judah. Get a life. Just cut it out...

@Smith
What’s even the point of GDPR? Z. o. put himself out there by choice. I prefer to just pretend Z. o. is some frustrated guy with a messy past who’s retired and has way too much leftover energy, spending his days trying to prove he hasn't been sent to the scrap heap yet. Since the forum owner gave him a little bit of power, he's completely let himself go. Nobody ever gave him the time of day in his actual life, but now that he’s stumbled onto some authority, he’s absolutely loving it—acting like some bored priest preaching to the choir and hallucinating ghosts from the past that he projects onto everyone else's usernames. You even get these random, unprovoked ego trips that nobody is actually moderating. By definition, you can't have two Smiths; there isn't a regular Smith user and then some alter-ego Smith moderator. There is only Z. o., and you can tell by the way he posts and moderates.
As a local might say: some people only put on a mask for Mardi Gras, while others wear them all year round. That's exactly why we have forum nicknames.
In real life, I hold at least two more academic degrees than this guy, so this whole "scientific approach" he keeps preaching is just a hollow fantasy. His "methodology" is anything but clear. He calls academics garbage, yet treats PhDs in history (Dr. Geiger), demography (Dr. Sterc), and mathematics (Dr. Elezovic) as personas non gratae—all quite selectively, depending on who he feels like targeting. Z. o. describes that infamous Jasenovac camp group victim list in a way that makes it painfully obvious how questionable its scientific foundation actually is. But of course, he doesn't even grasp that; he's too busy obsessing over his own narrative.

Absolutely nobody with even a shred of respect for scientific credibility would ever title a thread the way Z. o. did: White America, Greater America, Black America... Why? Because White America and Greater America are historical terms recorded by Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus over a millennium ago. As for Black America, there is zero historical record of that term; it’s a total fabrication. Z. o. is just a hack mixing everything together into one big mess while pretending to take a scholarly approach.
Arguing with him is just a massive waste of time.

Morgan Rodriguez57 said:Wait, how did you end up thinking you were the one being talked about? 🙂

My bad. These bots are starting to make me feel a little paranoid, I guess. Sorry about that.
😁

Morgan Rodriguez57 said:I mean, what else can you really expect from someone who thinks out of pure jealousy people are criticizing Tompkins and others funded by foreign power centers? Pure jealousy, give me a break... 🙏

Well, that was polite of you.
I think you got your wires crossed here. I never actually commented on how Tompkins gets his funding, nor did I say anything about those other guys facing similar scrutiny.

Go ahead and find me a single post where I said something like that, or were you actually talking about Smith?

@Smith deserves a much more detailed breakdown than this, and honestly, I just don't have the bandwidth for it right now.

Miller just got handed an activist assignment.

Between the constant stalking, the flame wars, and jumping down people's throats while tossing out yellow cards, basically Smith is just a cyberbully, along with a few other sidekicks like Judah and whoever else.
👎

🍿

bluecyclist64 said:It’s pretty obvious that Oštrić treats history as an actual science. The kind of "history" that trolls scrape from bottom-tier websites is much better suited for the Alternative section.
Let's be honest here: if someone is trying to learn history solely from movies on YouTube or similar sources, they really have no business lurking in the History subforum.

The moderation over in Natural Science takes a similar approach, and personally, I think it's excellent. If you don't have the knowledge, the facts, or the arguments to back things up, feel free to head over to some other subforums that don't demand much from their users.

Oštrić defends history as a science? Please. The way he handles medicine would just be called quackery.
In his world, academics are scum, university professors are fascists, tossing civilians into pits based on ethnicity is somehow "Anti-fascism," and a pile of braided hair doesn't equal thousands of bones...

For Oštrić, much like the rest of the American "left," Stalin remains a level of evil they can't quite wrap their heads around, which is pretty clear from how they react to the European Declaration on totalitarian regimes. That desperate need to defend the indefensible just leads to nothing but neurosis and the systematic destruction of the History subforum.

Arthur Smith15 said:Oštrić is an amazing moderator; without him, this History sub would just turn into some drunk frat party full of nasty historical revisionism, fascism, far-right nonsense, antisemitism, and all sorts of other garbage—ranging from pathetic to straight-up illegal.

It’s a total mystery why the amateur historians haven't discovered Alternative News yet, where they can spew whatever random thoughts pop into their heads without any moderation or the unbearable oppression we see here in History. They’d fit right in with the chemtrail conspiracy theorists, the anti-vaxxers, the Trump fanatics, and those people claiming civilizations live on the Moon or Jupiter.

Look, I’ve been on this forum for a long time and I've seen plenty of moderators come and go in the History section. And wouldn't you know it, everything you're describing hasn't actually happened, aside from maybe a few minor incidents that previous mods handled perfectly fine without resorting to insults or labeling everyone.

What do you mean "drunk frat party"? Are you out there performing breathalyzer tests or are you some kind of psychic like Milan?

The guy just does a bad job, plain and simple.

I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve called out this moderator for being both incompetent and completely blinded by his own ideology. Honestly, the biggest joke of all has to be his latest set of "theories" on evolution; apparently, actual science just doesn't sit right with him, so he's busy cooking up his own nonsense—stuff that sounds about as grounded in reality as flat-earth conspiracies—just so he can force biological facts into his weird little political bubble.
👎👎👎