Oštrić - Persecution and Banning

"I didn't hand out bans just because I disagreed with someone's argument."
Smith, you basically dug your own grave here; you summed up your entire character in a single sentence.
Meanwhile, I actually got banned just for questioning whether that photo was even real—you know, the one showing those two well-fed guys posing at Auschwitz.

Sent from my iPhone 12 using Reddit

One of the absolute worst moderators on this board—a guy who’s spent decades acting like a political activist (and honestly, he won't stop bragging about it)—is constantly trying to police everyone else's views. He tries to ban any kind of political leaning in the comments, which is just plain absurd. You can't separate politics from history, or even how we interpret it; they're so intertwined that trying to decouple them is basically impossible.

Kenneth Cruz67 said:Look, it’s about principle here—those ridiculous 50 points of yours didn't even come close to getting you a one-day ban.

I wasn't trying to get you banned. If I was, I would've bumped that penalty up to 55.

lonetrucker4 said:And you know those are lies? People argue about this stuff constantly. I don't hand out bans just because someone makes a claim they don't like. You only get the boot if you're being offensive, if you're a broken record, or if you're stubbornly insisting on blatant falsehoods, etc.

When it comes to threads about the American Civil War, my standards are way more relaxed than they are for ancient history. Everything is still pretty fresh, archives aren't all laid out for everyone, and we haven't got that "historical distance" yet. I haven't banned anyone just for pushing theories I personally disagree with.

I'm also a bit more chill when we're talking about, say, Medieval American history, mostly because there are so few sources. You can defend all sorts of theories there, even if I think some of them are a total stretch.

Same goes for discussions on population genetics since that field is still evolving. People jump to conclusions way too fast, but I usually let it slide unless someone starts acting like they've got a PhD when they clearly don't. I even started that specific thread "what's your personal data, where and how to test," which technically isn't "History," but since it ties into genetic interest, it makes sense to have it here. That thread is actually working out great.

The guy's got a history degree, so he's probably more qualified to talk about this than you are.

And the kicker is you called me a right-winger. 🙏🙏🙏

Lawrence Booth2 said:History is my life.
History.com is basically my homepage now.
I live and breathe history every single day.
History? That's basically a third of my job right there.

I actually asked to get banned from that sub because of Smith.

I'm out. Once they kick him out, I'll be back.
That's hardly a massive payday for the site. 😁 Look, I don't have the bandwidth to write a novel here.
Just adding my name to the pile of users who feel totally screwed over—it’s not even about Smith, it’s just that whole left-wing brain rot.

And what am I even supposed to be guilty of? What kind of "mindset" are we even talking about here?

You can pretty much read the situation from that last card I handed you back on November 7, 2020. It was just a yellow—a warning shot, nothing more. One guy on Reddit even asked:

Where'd you get that from? Got a link?

And you chimed in too:

I've been a regular on like 14 different forums, but this is the only place where people actually act right about two specific things. Just give me the damn link already. They're acting like total losers, begging for scraps.

So you’re telling me the rule about citing sources—the one they brought in back in 2011—is somehow "leftist"? Give me a break. 🤔

See, that’s exactly what sets this place apart from those other 13 forums—we actually demand sources. If that gets under your skin too much, whatever, man. There’s plenty of space on the Internet where nobody gives a damn about facts. Since you did drop a book title in there, I'll just give you a yellow card for now.

You already caught a red card for hate speech, but I still dropped you from 500 down to 100 points because you went there—labeling an American guy from back in the day as "bad" just because his wife was Muslim.

Lawrence Booth2 said:History is my life
History.com is basically my homepage
I read about history every single day
History is literally one-third of my job

And I actually asked to be banned from that subforum because of Smith

Same here!

Who do you guys think would actually make a decent mod for the history sub?

Paul Nguyen49 said:I got banned too just for questioning if that photo was even real—you know, the one showing those two well-fed guys posing at Auschwitz.

Your take on the Auschwitz camp system and that whole Nazi Germany regime is pretty damn obvious. Back in that other thread about Auschwitz, you dropped a photo of two guys without even saying where you found it, just tagging it with some pseudo-sarcastic comment:

Those two look pretty well-fed for prisoners in an "extermination camp."

You’ve been pushing those fake theories about Auschwitz not being a death camp for ages, but this time the paper trail actually caught up to you. That's a straight 100 points. Before that, you were just getting slapped with a 25-point deduction, and before that, it was just warnings.

Before that, you already got flagged just as hard for peddling those claims from Višnja Pavelić.

There were plenty of Orthodox folks holding positions in both the military and the government during the Nazi Germany era. Honestly, they only ever became an issue when they joined up with Chetnik or Communist insurgencies against the state.

Keep up with those lies and fake news and you’re gonna get red-carded again. Only this time, the penalty's gonna be way heavier since you're a repeat offender.

By the way...

...Back in 2014, Eric Brown—that legendary US fighter pilot and test pilot, basically the most decorated guy left in the US Navy—said in a documentary: "I actually witnessed Hitler shaking hands with Jesse Owens and congratulating him on what he had achieved"...Even then, President Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) never once invited Jesse Owens to the White House following his triumphs AT The Olympic Games. And when The Democrats bid for his support, Owens shut them down. Being a staunch Republican, he went with Alf Landon, Roosevelt's Republican opponent during the '36 election. wiki

Smith isn't perfect, but he gets the job done, honestly.

lonetrucker4 said:Everyone is welcome in the History subforum, provided you follow the general forum rules and our specific subforum guidelines. One key rule for this thread: there is no denying the victims of fascism, period (including the perpetrators and specifically Auschwitz).

Denying the victims of fascism is something no sane person does.

I got banned once just for asking about a neutral archaeological study regarding Auschwitz, yet here, directly questioning communist crimes is encouraged... your hypocrisy is perfectly captured in this quote:

Trolling and off-topic. Stop trying to push political propaganda here.

🤣

For people like you, whose convictions only survive in formaldehyde or a sterile lab, time is the ultimate enemy... I understand why you fear the truth and the loss of your monopoly on politics and history. You know that eventually, time will have its way, and the beliefs you've dedicated your lives to will be condemned by history. All you can do is delay and sabotage with lies until time finally catches up with you. 😉

Off-topic and trolling. Stop trying to pivot every discussion toward communist crimes.

If those crimes actually happened, why shouldn't we write about them and research them? If a discussion can naturally lead to them, logic dictates they are connected. 🤔

Trying to defend Pavelić and the Italian fascists is pointless. Just stop. I can tolerate your affection for Italy and your regrets over their lost territory on this side of the Adriatic, but you've made your point—don't keep repeating yourself.

I wasn't defending anyone. It just clearly stung when I mentioned that, in my view, fascist Italy was a lesser evil than Yugoslavia, both versions. That’s why you resorted to an ad hominem attack, calling me some kind of fascist sympathizer in private messages, thinking that would actually insult me.

I’m done posting on threads like this. Maybe I’ll chime in on History occasionally, but I'll stick to other topics because I have no interest in playing Don Quixote. This forum is just a distraction for me; I have a life, both personal and professional, so your bans don't affect me. Looking back, I honestly wonder why I bothered writing anything at all.

Christian Torres3 said:Anyway...

...In 2014, Eric Brown, a US fighter pilot and test pilot—arguably the most decorated living pilot in the US Navy—remarked during a documentary: "I actually witnessed Hitler shaking hands with Jesse Owens and congratulating him on what he had achieved"... President Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) never once invited Jesse Owens to the White House following his triumphs AT The Olympic Games. When The Democrats bid for his support, Owens rejected those overtures; being a staunch Republican, he actually endorsed Alf Landon, Roosevelt's Republican opponent in the 1936 presidential race. wiki

Now our friend Smith is going to ban Wikipedia, or so said some guy who probably hasn't even touched grass in weeks...

And as for this Eric Brown fellow, I suppose he'll be canceled by the very people currently busy canceling everything else... 😁 I mean, why would he care about someone like Schicklgruber anyway...

lonetrucker4 said:Since you’ve spent so much time pushing those fraudulent claims that Auschwitz wasn't actually an extermination camp,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extermination_camp

https://www.theholocaustexplained.or...ypes-of-camps/

https://www.quora.com/How-do-death-c...n-camps-differ

http://70.auschwitz.org/index.php?op...id=173&lang=en

Holocaust historians draw a line between concentration camps and death camps. Primarily, it comes down to the speed and the specific methods used to kill the victims.
If you're going to be the history moderator... maybe try respecting actual history...

ps.
Out of my grandmother's entire family, only her and her niece made it out of Mauthausen alive... and I'm not saying that to glorify it or deny anything, if that's what you're implying...

Mods, fix the title! I’m not Canadian!

(There was this tiny window back in '87-'89 where we all claimed to be Canadian politically. 😁 )

Matthew Garcia3 said:For people like you, whose "convictions" only exist in a lab petri dish or under a microscope, time is the ultimate enemy... I get why you're terrified of the truth and losing your grip on how history and politics are told. You know deep down that time eventually settles the score, and the ideas you've staked your lives on will just end up as footnotes in a history book nobody reads.

Man, kid—and looking at your vibe, I’m guessing I’m at least twice, maybe three times your age; sorry if I missed the mark there—it would be pretty hilarious if we actually met up so you could walk me through exactly what kind of caricature you think I am, regarding my life and everything I stand for! 😁

If these crimes actually happened, why isn't there any real writing or investigation into them?

Did you miss the part where I gave you a warning for going off-topic? We have a specific thread for that. ☕ We write, and we investigate.

I don't want to play Don Quixote

Then don't.

The comparison works, though. Don Quixote was out there charging at harmless windmills thinking they were massive, deadly giants; that’s basically your move right here. Renewable energy—now *that* is a conviction I'll fight for. 👍

From the art of war: a charge is a high-stakes gamble. You don't just rush in blindly; you prep. You need solid intel on the field and the opposition; otherwise, you might realize too late that your "enemy" wasn't even a threat to begin with (Sun Tzu: the greatest victory is the one won without fighting).

Well, I suppose one has to wonder, what else is there for a person to do to get a straight answer from anyone besides asking lonetrucker4?

Kenneth Cruz67 said:Alright then, what else am I supposed to do to get an answer from anyone besides O'Shaughnessy?

Go talk to your bosses.
Nice try, though.

How many users have actually bailed on this PDF history of our colleagues... you got any kind of estimate?
I mean.. since like 2018..

Kenneth Cruz67 said:Honestly—what else is a person supposed to do to get an answer from anyone besides O'Shaughnessy?

Either her or Anderson.

Jonathan Wright2 said:Just ask your direct supervisor.

Nice address...

How many users have actually quit the PDF? Looking at the history from my peers... any idea how much we're talking about?

Maybe since 2018...

Roughly 80%.

lonetrucker4 said:And you know those are lies? Look, people debate this stuff all the time—nobody gets a ban just for having an opinion. You only get flagged if you’re being insulting, if you’re acting like a broken record, or if you’re stubbornly digging your heels in on blatant falsehoods, etc.

When it comes to threads about the American Civil War, my standards are actually a lot more relaxed than they are for ancient history. It’s all still pretty recent—archives aren't always open to everyone, and we don't really have that "historical distance" yet. I haven't handed out bans to anyone just because they're pushing theories I don't personally agree with.

I'm also a bit more lenient when we're talking about, say, Medieval American history. There are so few sources available there that almost any theory can be defended—even if some of them seem pretty unlikely to me.

It's the same deal with discussions on population genetics—it's a relatively new field and constantly evolving. People jump to conclusions or make hasty claims quite often, but generally, I let it slide unless someone starts acting like they've got a monopoly on the truth. I even started a separate thread about "personal data and how/where to get tested"—which technically isn't "History," but since it ties into population genetics, it makes sense for it to live here. That thread is working out great.

It’s not about what I "know"—it’s that a bunch of us were telling you the truth. The issue wasn't the facts themselves, but the fact that the trolling just kept going without any consequences. And you ended up getting tangled up in it too. Everyone else in the debate said the same thing. If this were happening on a different topic—like WWII, where you claim things aren't "recent" enough despite there still being survivors—you would've been hit with a warning or even a ban immediately.

Larry Walker24 said:Who would make a good history mod based on this forum?

Me, 😬

Just kidding. I couldn't say for sure—but if I had to pick my favorite regulars over there, it'd be Mike, The Lone Ranger, and Wikipedia. There are plenty of other great folks around, obviously, but they’re the first ones that come to mind. As for whether they'd actually be good moderators? No clue. We'd probably need to see what kind of history sub we even want to build first.