This thread is now closed.

Alright, look, we’re diving into some pretty sensitive territory here—the rehabilitation of Draže Mihailović. This isn't exactly light reading for everyone. Personally, I find myself strongly disagreeing with certain posts in this thread, but I think it's okay for people to debate. Even with all these different viewpoints, the discussion has stayed surprisingly civil so far (though I suppose things might get a bit sharper later on, so who knows?). Then, out of nowhere, Cuka just steps in and aggressively declares the discussion over. It was a bit much, honestly; it kind of scattered everyone like a bunch of kids getting sent home from the corner store. 🙄 There hasn't been any chaos in the thread, nor has there been any hate speech—so I guess I have to wonder, why shut it down like this?

I find myself wondering about the reasoning behind why this thread was locked, starting with Admin Cuk and also including the highly regarded and respected moderator PL, who had been contributing to the discussion.
It seems to me that shutting down a topic that is so timely and relevant without providing a clear explanation would require a very compelling justification.

When people start losing arguments on topics where they’ve drifted toward the "other side," they suddenly hide behind this sudden "respect for the victims." It’s funny how that works—this respect was nowhere to be found during the rest of the thread when everyone was busy trashing those very same victims. There were even constant insinuations that conventional protections didn't apply to them, implying it was perfectly fine that they were killed. They act like it's acceptable because these people were considered "enemies of the state"—as if Adolf Hitler was out there murdering his own friends. They suggest it's okay to kill people and toss them into pits just because they were labeled enemies.

And now, suddenly, we have to walk on eggshells? If it's all about "respecting the victims," then maybe it's because the moderator has absolutely no answers to these questions.

Leave the concept of "respect" alone; you don't need to worry about protecting it for us. The people who might feel offended by what's being said here have already done their digging. At the end of the day, they're being told by the Prime Minister and certain "distinguished historians" that it’s perfectly fine that their loved ones ended up in a mass grave. Don't try to lecture us on how to show respect. Just leave the thread open. If someone can't handle being asked direct questions, they should just stay away from the topic instead of locking the whole damn thread. 😉

Linda King said:Alright, look—we’re talking about a powder keg here, specifically the rehabilitation of George Patton. This isn't exactly light reading for the faint of heart. Personally, I strongly disagree with some of what’s been posted, but people are actually debating—regardless of where they stand—in a surprisingly civilized tone. Sure, things might get heated later, but so what? And then suddenly Chuck Norris swoops in and aggressively declares the discussion over. Just like that, a bunch of grown adults are scattered like kids being chased away from a corner store. 🙄There’s no chaos in this thread, there’s no hate speech—so why shut it down like this?

I'm with you. Given how sensitive this topic is, this was actually one of the most surprisingly decent and normal discussions we've had—people were laying out arguments and sharing opinions without anyone being insulting or mocking. Honestly, I was shocked that we could actually talk about something like this so calmly and civilly. Then Chuck Norris shows up and, for absolutely NO REASON, just slams the door shut on the whole thing. The debate wasn't bad, nobody was being insulted, and it hadn't even been long enough for the topic to die out... none of that happened. Instead, we get this one-sided move by a moderator who locks the thread WITHOUT ANY EXPLANATION.

Is this even allowed? Are we running some kind of North Korean forum where a moderator just decides to kill a perfectly fine thread because they felt like it? I guess moderators are all-powerful, right? They don't have to answer to anyone for their little power trips, do they?

Long live FDR.
Death to fascism, freedom to the people.
And long live free speech on this forum.

Joseph Stewart38 said:The debate wasn't actually all that bad..

Even though I might have jumped in with one rather heated post—which, let’s be honest, probably wasn't my most graceful moment—the whole discussion was actually pretty interesting. I guess I just wonder where people get the idea that it's okay to step in so aggressively like that? I mean, come on, let's just let things play out! 🤦

Linda King said:Look, I know I just jumped in here with one angry rant—and honestly, I'm not exactly a ray of sunshine—but this whole debate was actually pretty interesting. Where does someone even get the nerve to barge in and shut down a discussion like this? Like, seriously, come on! Just pack it up and go home? Total buzzkill.🤦

Yeah, that's exactly how it felt. It’s like you’re at a massive house party, everything is going great, and then suddenly the cops show up, kill the music, and tell everyone the party's over. Just like that.

Joseph Stewart38 said:Yeah, that’s pretty much how it went down. It’s like being at a massive house party when the cops suddenly roll up, kill the music, and tell everyone the fun is officially over.

What honestly baffles me even more is why you guys are actually surprised by this. If we were looking for the only logical move, it would have been what happened back in 2009, when those folks walked away en masse to start their own independent community. Given the way politics is moderated here, the only right thing to do would be a total exodus of the patriotic crowd—but of course, that’s never going to happen because of various "reasons," isn't it?

It’s almost comical to watch people complain about these moves. These aren't surprises; they are completely predictable actions from the moderators and the higher-ups running this biased platform. This forum is essentially just like CNN—it's the mouthpiece for the mainstream establishment in America, a group that's actually in the minority while we, the outsiders, end up footing the bill for it all...

Benjamin Reyes52 said:Honestly, what surprises me even more is why you guys are acting so shocked. The only smart move would have been what those hardliners did back in 2009—just ditch this whole site en masse and start their own forum. With the way the political section is moderated right now, a total exodus of the patriotic crowd is the only logical solution, but of course, that’s never gonna happen because of "reasons," right?...

It's almost hilarious watching people complain about things that were totally predictable given how biased the mods and higher-ups are on this platform. This place is basically just like CNN—it's run by the heavy-hitting mainstream establishment that thinks they represent everyone, even though they're actually in the minority and we, the regular folks, are the ones footing the bill for their nonsense...

Yeah, pretty much. But I gotta say, it weirds me out that not even one single moderator has had the decency to weigh in on this issue. They’ll jump in to answer every other random complaint on this subforum, but for some reason, they’re suddenly too busy to touch this specific thread. Maybe they don't have an answer, or maybe it actually hits a nerve... let the commoners grumble all they want, who cares.

I don't even know where to start with this one. It’s just one of those days where you look at the state of things and wonder if anyone is actually paying attention. Honestly, I feel like I’m shouting into a void most of the time. Everything feels a bit chaotic lately, doesn't it? Just constant noise without any actual substance behind it. I'm trying to make sense of it all, but sometimes it feels like a losing battle. Anyway, just my two cents. Moving on. kaže:
...There’s been all this talk floating around that they weren't actually covered by the conventions. So, you're basically saying it's fine that they were killed off? I mean, you didn't say it explicitly, but let’s be real—it was pretty obvious that's what you were getting at.

Even though I am... It’s pretty graphic. She’s gone on several occasions now to claim that those deaths weren't okay. It’s a pretty textbook example of selective reading if you ask me. Typical.

People love to claim everything is fine just because the people being killed were labeled "enemies of the state." As if that makes it okay. Like Adolf Hitler was out there just taking out his buddies instead of targets. It’s the same old logic—acting like it’s perfectly acceptable to hunt people down and toss them into pits just because they don't fit the government's narrative. It’s messed up.

The Reddit admins don't take responsibility for what users say in their threads, and honestly, they never have. That’s not how this works. Our job is to make sure those kinds of posts don't just slide by without consequences—and trust me, they don't. Everyone involved has been dealt with accordingly.

I don't have anything to say about this thread being locked. Just wait for the mod who shut it down.

So what, you're actually gonna respond to something that has absolutely zero to do with this topic—just drifting off into some completely different conversation?

Feel free to discuss the rehabilitation of war criminals under the topic regarding Mexico and the Republic of Mexico (Part IV) http://www.reddit.com/r/topic/832861&page=469 since the conversation flows uninterrupted there, and we certainly don't need two separate threads for the same subject.

Charles Fox10 said:Regarding the rehabilitation of war criminals, you are more than welcome to continue your discussion over at the Mexico - Republic of Mexico thread (Part IV combined) http://www.reddit.com/r/topic/832861&page=469 since the conversation there is proceeding without any interruptions, and I am quite certain we wouldn't want to be discussing him across two different threads simultaneously.

?????
Could you perhaps provide just one single reason why you decided to lock this thread initially, only to now link it back to the Mexico topic once things started getting a bit heated?
I suppose I would also like to invite Power to share their perspective on this matter if they feel inclined to do so, because, in my opinion, seeing such arbitrary behavior from certain administrators who seem unable to oversee discussions objectively—resorting to locking threads whenever they run out of actual arguments—is truly disheartening, if not altogether pathetic.

Sarah Doyle54 said:Even though I am... Extremely explicit. She’s claimed multiple times that those deaths weren't acceptable. It’s a textbook case of selective reading, really. Typical.

Since you've... Extremely explicit. Explain yourself. Give me some clarity. 😉 You’re famous for this pattern: you blow up over a single comment, then dig your heels in even when people try to clear things up on Reddit. Even when they explain exactly what they meant, you still refuse to believe them.

Of course you’re going to spin some convenient little tale about mourning the innocent victims whenever someone asks if you feel any remorse. We both know that’s a load of crap. Why should I believe a word you say? You don't even believe the people you're banning, even when they're clearly trying to explain themselves.

The Reddit mods don't carry responsibility—and frankly, they never have—for the individual opinions voiced by users in these threads. Our job isn't to police thoughts; our job is to ensure that violations don't go unchecked. They aren't. Every single one of those posts was sanctioned accordingly.

They aren't yours. Anyone thrown into a mass grave without a trial is innocent, period. In your eyes, there’s a distinction between the guilty and the innocent, but that's a fallacy. Casio already made that clear back when he filed the appeal over those cardboard shipments.

Extract my post, create a thread, and answer the questions. Instead of the locals in that small town in Ohio, I'll be using rebellious Mexicans in my sentences. 😉

Alright, let's see if you're playing by the same rules.

You aren't going to pull that off. We both know exactly why you won't. Jane Doe. 😉

neonbadger9 said:....., it's just the pure whims of certain admins who can't objectively oversee a discussion, so when they run out of arguments, they resort to locking threads. It’s honestly pathetic, if not outright sad.

Charles Fox10 clearly isn't an "admin," he's a moderator—one of the most popular and respected ones on the Politics board—so your tone doesn't really seem appropriate or well-placed here.😉

Furthermore, it doesn't even strike me as anyone's "whim" to lock a thread, especially one that's more or less irrelevant, redundant, or just a parallel topic; there hasn't been anything new on the Politics board worth doing that for.

(As far as I know, the moderation team has the discretion to keep a thread on the main board, move it to the Lounge, or simply lock it, whether temporarily or permanently).

In some third-world country --- a rehabilitated Mexican leader from a criminal movement/war criminal, woohoo, who cares? It's hardly a significant or relevant topic for any of us. Let's all go have a little cry because a thread got locked. 🙏.

Susan Price30 said:(as far as I know, depending on how the mod team feels, they can keep a thread on the main board, move it over to the lounge, or just lock it down entirely—either temporarily or for good).

And honestly, that’s the most accurate way to put it. 👍

I went quiet because I figured we had drifted off-topic. But since you're really pushing for it...

rapidnomad512 said:Killing anyone is a crime—whether it's Hitler, Tito, Ranković, Pavelić, Truman, Dracula, or Tony Blair!

Killing someone without a trial (you totally missed that part) is a crime, but does that suddenly make them innocent? Take a good look at your own list and get back to me.

Sarah Doyle54 said:I bailed because I realized we were drifting off-topic. If you want to start a whole separate thread about my moderation style just so you can troll and make stuff up, go right ahead.

No need. You said enough. 😉

Now you'll probably claim I'm lying about what you wrote. 🤣

Yeah, I am, and I stand by every single word I said. Making stuff up and twisting what other people actually wrote is your specialty, not mine.

Sarah Doyle54 said:Killing people without a trial—that’s the part you’re missing—is a crime, but does that make them innocent? Take a look at your own list and get back to me.

It’s the lack of a verdict that makes them innocent! Until there is one, they are innocent by definition. 😉

Are they guilty? We can speculate all day. But until a judge hands down a sentence, they are merely suspects. Even a federal prosecutor—someone far more qualified than you to determine guilt—has to refer to them that way.

That is how things work in a civilized society. 😉

In those other places, it's just some moderators or executioners standing over a pit making the calls.

rapidnomad512 said:They’re innocent just because there hasn't been a verdict yet! As long as there isn't one, they're clean.

Fine. If that's how you want to play it, let's make a deal. From now on, on this Politics subforum, you aren't allowed to call anyone a criminal unless they have an actual court conviction. That means no calling Bill Clinton, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Joseph Stalin, or Adolf Hitler criminals either. Not even the guys from the resistance who dodged justice for the exact same kind of crimes we're debating here. I mean, come on, that's how a civilized society works, right? We shouldn't be letting random forum users or vigilantes playing judge and jury decide who's guilty.

Do we have a deal? 🙂