Posts by driftingorca16

This isn't even directed at Zoran Oštrić. It’s for the "higher-ups." I’m not questioning anyone's intelligence here.
How much longer is management going to let people post Flat Earth nonsense in the main threads, and how long are they going to tolerate mods being straight-up disrespectful to the users?
☕

This isn't even a question for the mods, it's more about the higher-ups. I’m not questioning anyone's intelligence here.
How much longer are the moderators going to let people post "the Earth is flat" nonsense in the same rank as actual facts, and how much longer are we supposed to put up with them insulting forum members?
☕

I’m seriously asking you guys to strip lonetrucker4 of his moderator status in the history section.

lonetrucker4;72581875 said:

I wasn't using those "genetic change" formulations across the board—that would be stupid, obviously. I was talking about the whims of fate that cause one Y-haplotype to spread while another dies out. I mentioned the "sum of zero" thing in relation to a coin toss, sure, and while genetic math is more complex than that, the point is that the a priori odds stay equal.

But even with pure math and statistics, you get fluctuations; for instance, one group might end up with 1,100 sons while another has 900. Various random factors over a long enough timeline can amplify those swings. Because of that, the initial distribution can shift significantly over 10, 20, or more generations without any specific, massive event actually occurring.

This is just the new theory of evolution.

It doesn't line up with this:

The Hardy–Weinberg principle, also known as the Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium, model, theorem, or law, states that allele and genotype frequencies in a population will remain constant from generation to generation in the absence of other evolutionary influences.

Aside from being insulting, he acts like he "knows what I'm thinking" and understands the exact reasoning behind my moves; the guy’s basically a psychic at this point. It wouldn't be such a mess if he didn't constantly condescend and insult people, but the country isn't flat.

Check out some of his other posts:

Pure chance can shift allele frequency, and there are obviously other factors involved. I was referring specifically to one part of the Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium concept.

The thing is, genetic drift happens under very specific conditions that fall right under "other evolutionary influences."

And this one definitely deserves a ban:

Maybe I insulted your intelligence by overestimating it.

Then comes the endless stream of explanations. 🤦

👎

The guy just isn't fit for moderation, plain and simple.

Something else is clearly going on here. lonetrucker4 is on a mission. He isn't interested in moderation; he's focused on ideological activism and is likely just a pawn in some much larger game. Who's footing his bill? I haven't a clue.

- Because if you repeat a claim like that a million times, the first thing Americans will associate with Auschwitz is 'Mexicans are lying'—said NGO activist Zoran Ostric.

An activist doesn't belong in a moderator seat. The lack of objectivity is baked right into the definition of activism itself. There's really nothing more to say about it. This guy is just harassing the users.
👎

lonetrucker4 said:@Nathan Richardson2, I’m not even going to dignify your endless circling with a comment. If you keep playing denialist regarding the victims of the wartime regime, expect those penalties to keep rolling in.

I've pointed out multiple times that the "moderator" has taken such an unsustainable ideological stance on history that it's getting ridiculous. When they refuse to sanction anyone denying post-WWII atrocities, it just becomes incredibly grating. I've reported posts from Kiseli1 several times for straight-up breaking forum rules, yet nothing happens.
And trust me, I'm not the only one calling this out. link

The mod basically disqualified themselves at this point.
Seriously, this is getting old!

Just to give you a quick illustration, I’ll drop a snippet from an article in The New York Times written by Ivo Goldstein—you might know him by his cheeky nickname, Sinek—regarding the victim lists for the Jasenovac camp group... (we can dive into the rest over at a dedicated political subreddit, but let's not turn this thread into a circus)

The main criticism was that the list contained a massive amount of duplicate names—around 14,000 repeats—which supposedly inflated the total death toll. Actually, it was just a glitch in the computer program that kept repeating the same names on subsequent pages of the list. The curators at the Jasenovac memorial site, who are constantly refining the records, have logically proven that these duplicates never actually affected the final count, because they always only counted the primary victim during tallying, not the repeats. When they did a formal audit in 2015 and wiped out the duplicates, the total number of Jasenovac victims didn't even budge.

The reality is that whoever wrote the software for this list—which, mind you, was made public and available for anyone to find online—made it look like a total amateur job, and the people running the institution are clearly failing to apply even the most basic quality control measures to their own publications. Honestly, any sophomore engineering student at MIT could have done a better job than this...
But of course, anyone who points that out gets immediately branded as some kind of malicious conspiracy theorist or whatever other labels Nathan Richardson2 so skillfully used to describe them...
Meanwhile, the amateurs keep tripping over mistakes that are obvious even from a plane...

Honestly, I’m totally on board with the idea that lonetrucker4 shouldn't be a moderator for the history section. He just tosses out conspiracy theories without any actual proof when replying to people, gets all label-happy and insulting, hands out bans for no reason at all, and basically just suffocates any decent discussion.
👎👎👎

Daniel Ward87 said:I’ve been scrolling through the thread and the debate, and honestly, lonetrucker4 is spot on here. You're clearly blinded by ideology—your posts have been showing that bias since way before lonetrucker4 even stepped up as a mod.

It’s pretty much what lonetrucker4 said about you having trouble telling certain things straight, though he wasn't speaking as a moderator, just as a regular guy on the forum. Is this just baiting for a ban? Or maybe just trolling? Because the way you talk about Nazi Germany and that whole era isn't exactly grounded in reality. If I were the mod, I’d probably just scrub the post unless I was 100% sure it warranted a strike. On the flip side, I get why people say mods should avoid making those kinds of calls specifically to avoid these exact situations.

Also, claiming lonetrucker4 is arguing that the Church promotes mass killings is trolling at its finest. People have been debating the role of the Secret Police in Nazi Germany for ages, including how they helped officials flee to places like Argentina. Regarding propaganda, I wouldn't go as far as saying the Secret Police was the Goebbels of Nazi Germany (that part definitely deserves a strike, btw), but I see the point you're trying to make about how much influence the Secret Police had on the average American back then. Just because someone doesn't say something explicitly doesn't mean they aren't indirectly backing certain views for their own benefit, right? And we all know how terrified the Nazis and their cronies were of the Soviets showing up. Fighting Bolshevism was a matter of survival, so any means used to stop it felt justified to them.

Anyway, in this specific mess, you're both kind of right and you both deserve the strikes.

Clearly, I don't fit into this red-versus-black colorblindness you guys seem obsessed with. I'm not "black" and I'm not "red." It's all colors to me. The only reason today's "reds" make sense is because they see nothing but "black" around them, which is exactly what you're doing. But I'm not letting anyone lump me in with the "black" side, especially not from ideological zealots who can't see war crimes staring them in the face while lecturing everyone else on pacifism and anti-fascism. That’s just a gross distortion of the facts and an insult. Period.

I don't read minds; I read what people actually write. And he wrote exactly what he wrote. That isn't an insinuation or trolling; it's just quoting him.

We're living in the 21st century, America is a sovereign nation, a member of the EU and NATO, and it's out there forming strategic military partnerships with Israel. So, what's your actual problem?

Of course you're dodging the point. And now we're just diving straight into ad hominem attacks, aren't we?

The actual topic is the FBI executions of victims right after the war in May and June of 1945.

You didn't actually address the text you quoted, mostly because it’s historically garbage—just an ideological fabrication that perfectly illustrates your "understanding" of what really went down. Honestly, I can't even give you a formal warning for a post this bad.

I definitely don't think extrajudicial killings were justified. On the flip side, though, it wasn't just about one single article or some obscure rag; it was about the relentless, heavy-handed propaganda supporting the Nazi regime, fascist ideologies, and the Nazi aggression, along with the mass killings carried out by the local collaborators and German Nazis throughout the four years of the war.

I have to bring it back to the Yalta Conference involving Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin, specifically when Stalin suggested wiping out fifty thousand German officers once the war ended. Roosevelt jokingly asked if forty-nine thousand would suffice, while Churchill actually walked out of the room. Stalin then played it off, saying he was just kidding...

Stalin proposed executing 50,000–100,000 German officers so that Germany could not plan another war. Roosevelt, believing Stalin was not serious, joked that "maybe 49,000 would be enough". Churchill, however, was outraged and denounced "the cold blooded execution of soldiers who fought for their country". He said that only war criminals should be put on trial in accordance with the Moscow Document, which he himself had written. He stormed out of the room, but was brought back in by Stalin who said he was joking. Churchill was glad Stalin Had relented , but thought Stalin was testing The Waters.

What happened here was the systematic slaughter of anyone deemed undesirable. It was exactly what Stalin "suggested" to the Allies. For the Germans, "Stalin's measure" meant 50-100 thousand out of 60 million people. But for Americans, 50-100 thousand out of 4-5 million is a biblical apocalypse.

You seem obsessed with political labels. You're just pushing ideological talking points where a bit of communist party solidarity is used to "forgive" mass atrocities.

Banning people doesn't solve anything. Decades of cover-ups, threats, killings, and prison camps run by Tito's Yugoslavia didn't fix the truth either. Because at the end of the day, it was a mass crime.
My stance is Churchill's stance, no matter how hard you try to twist it and paint me as a fascist.

It sounds like Stalin is speaking through you, lonetrucker4, disguised as "party criticism." You're hardly cut out for moderating in the 21st century.
☕

Dealing with Zoran Oštrić acting as moderator is getting exhausting:

Z. o. Quote

I get it, since you're so deeply entrenched in your ideology, you just can't tell the difference between "understanding" and "excusing" something.....

This is getting old....

There's a specific kind of ad hominem called poisoning the well. It’s basically a preemptive strike to smear someone's position before they even have a chance to speak. It’s an attempt to discredit anything said that goes against a preferred narrative through purely illogical means. ....

https://laikaskeptik.wordpress.com/2...gicke-pogreke/

Once again, ad hominem attacks and insults from the moderator....

And this is how he actually participates in a debate.....
🤦

How much longer is this going to last?

And just as a little side note regarding the Catholic Church:

I certainly don't believe extrajudicial killings were justified. On the other hand, we aren't just talking about some obscure headline or a "hardly read newspaper," but rather relentless, intense propaganda favoring the fascist regime, fascist ideologies, and Nazi aggression, along with mass killings carried out by fascists and German Nazis, throughout the four years of the war.

So this guy is claiming the Catholic Church promoted mass killings....

I'm out of words.

Could someone please, for my uneducated self, explain what Nazi revisionism actually is? Please!