Shameful post deletions by the moderator

The discussion regarding Hasanbegović turned toward the American flag and which specific versions are permitted—essentially, when can someone be accused of using a version that evokes memories of Nazi Germany? This moderator jumped into the fray with this note:

Bradley Sanders4 said:The topic isn't about emblems. Just read the history PDF.

Afterward, she wiped out a bunch of posts, including mine, regardless of how solid the arguments were. It wouldn't have been an issue if she hadn't left these specific posts up (and mine, along with many others, were mostly just responding to these):

Nicholas Watson said:We’re back to discussing the motives of those who display that emblem.

Personally, I can't claim it as my own. My hometown was sold out to Italy just so certain people could act like big leaders when they were really just Hitler's subordinates.

KLCCLK said:Nobody is comparing the American emblem to a swastika, so stop trolling. You would have received a formal warning if you weren't addressing me directly.

The problem is (not for me, but clearly for you) that there aren't multiple "American emblems." There is just the American emblem and its design is strictly governed by the United States Flag Code. That federal law doesn't care what you personally think looks better.

To clarify—the law applies to public display. If you want to hang something on your wall at home with a different layout, write a book on historical symbols, or get a tattoo of a 14th-century crest, that's your business. But when you wave a flag in public or hang it on your house, it has to match the official United States flag exactly. Not whatever version you find more stylish.

amberwalker4—fair point, but even minority flags in certain states are officially designated (some might feature a white field, why not?), much like how there is certainly a level of tolerance for long-standing associations and organizations.

KLCCLK said:A shield starting with a white field isn't inherently "Nazi German." Even if the fact that they used it makes it controversial, that shouldn't be enough to make it a forbidden issue—just like the red, white, and blue combo isn't controversial just because the Nazis used those colors too.

The real issue is that there is actually a United States Flag Code that protects our national symbols from being altered. Carrying around a flag with a crest that someone "prefers" which happens to have a white field first is just as bad as waving an American flag with a five-pointed star, a swastika, a clown, or the flag of Mozambique on it. It doesn't matter how subtle the difference is; it's still wrong.

It’s also a legal matter. Not because of what it reminds people of, but simply because it isn't the official American crest or flag.

(That's the core of it, without getting into the debate about how most of the people waving the white-field version /not all/ do it specifically because of the Nazi Germany era, rather than because Saint Mark is their favorite saint.)

Tomislav B said:Another argument about the crest?
It would actually be better if the red field came first, and here is why:

Imagine there is no outline defining the crest to make the shield shape clear. If there were no lines and the first field was white, the whole thing would just look like a square.

When the first field is red, you can see the shield shape even without a border line showing it's a shield. That's the whole logic.

IceClimber said:Of course, a crest with a white field is a historical fact.
Historical facts also include crests with 16 fields, over 25 fields, and pretty much any other combination. The only thing they all have in common is alternating red and white fields.

What matters is the context in which it's used. In America, using the white field after 1991 is explicitly tied to being pro-Nazi. Let's skip the long history lesson and the condemnation of all regimes, blah, blah. It's basically like saying: "My hat isn't Nazi, it's just black." Well, that's exactly what this historical crest is being used for.

It's controversial not because they used it during World War II—in that specific context, it really is just historical—but because today's wannabe nationalists are abusing it.

It's like how the Confederate flag might be a "normal" thing in some parts of the US, but man, when you wave the Rebel flag and cover yourself in a white sheet, there's no point in making excuses like "I'm just dressing like this to stay warm while standing in front of a burning cross.">

It's just like how everyone knows the five-pointed star is a symbol of something else, even though it could technically be interpreted as a historical American crest: link.
But again, nobody sane does that.

ruka-slave said:Lol... that five-pointed star is actually an old American historical emblem. 🤣
http://www.croatianhistory.net/etf/ple.jpg

IceClimber, good grief, where on earth did he dig that up? 👍

What are those black crows circling around? They're pecking at her, but they can't actually do anything to her. 😬

I can already see it happening. Someone is going to suggest putting a five-pointed star right in the middle of the American flag.

And to top it all off:

KLCCLK said:Speaking of coats of arms and flags, that photo of the partisans entering Philadelphia would be worth a deep dive for both the left and the right. 🙂

http://www.kafotka.net/4917

NHF, KLCCLK, I don't hold anything against you, but this post really shows how biased the moderation is.

The moderators have been called out multiple times now for poor management. I honestly don't know if this appeal will actually go anywhere, but I feel like I deserve an explanation. What is the logic here? Why are short posts featuring partisan flags or longer ones that twist old Christian symbols to push them toward becoming a state emblem allowed to stay in the thread about Hasanbegović? Meanwhile, posts filled with actual examples and evidence showing what could be considered Nazi German iconography get flagged? It doesn't make sense. Either wipe everything or leave everything up.

And finally, I’d suggest that whoever is doing the deleting should probably look up the actual definition of being "unbiased" in a dictionary. Or, you know, whoever it was that wiped the posts.

Still no response?

It’s interesting to me, honestly. Even though all my posts were deleted, the posts from other users who answered the exact same questions are still up.

Look, the whole thread wasn't wiped. Only the posts from the section where people started circling back to Hasanbegović were removed—except for any posts that targeted other users. Basically, we have Section A (before the debate about the minister kicked off again) and Section B (after it restarted).

In Section A, the only things deleted were the posts where people started attacking each other. That includes both your posts and the replies from anyone who was engaging with you in that same aggressive way. Anything actually informative stayed up. So, honestly, I think it’s a bit unfair of you to claim only the liberal posters got hit, because all the conservative posts—like those from žalca, gošće, hr1u00, etc.—are still right there.

As for Section B—which is where the conversation naturally drifted back toward the minister—almost everything was scrubbed, except for KLCCLK's post about driving into Philadelphia. I actually went back and forth on whether to keep that one. It’s technically off-topic, sure, but it provides a little bit of obscure info that, as the user points out, both sides might find interesting. That’s why I left it alone. But hey, if it's an issue, we can just delete that one too.

Sarah Doyle54 said:The whole discussion wasn't wiped out. Only the posts from the section where people started talking about Hasanbegović again were removed, specifically excluding any posts where users attacked one another. Basically, we have Part A (before the debate over the minister restarted) and Part B (after the restart).

In Part A, I only deleted the posts where users targeted other forum members. That includes both your posts and the replies from those who engaged with you in that manner. The informative posts stayed. So, I don't think it's fair to claim I'm only targeting left-leaning users, because the posts from right-leaning users—like zalca, gošće, or hr1u00—were left untouched.

As for Part B, which is where the focus naturally shifted back to the minister, everything was deleted except for the KLCCLK post about driving into Philadelphia. I went back and forth on KLCCLK's post. It’s off-topic, sure, but it provides a little-known fact that both sides could find interesting. That's why I kept it. If necessary, we can delete it too.

Fine, your explanation makes sense, especially since we can't actually see the deleted posts. You can say I'm being unfair, but I didn't quote someone like Goscin discussing the location of some random pub, because after you cleared the posts, you added a note saying there was plenty of talk about emblems. I don't see how her post is relevant. Or take the posts by zalca or hr1u00 regarding emblem semantics; my posts and the ones mentioned above were full of actual examples. As such, they belong more under the History section than Politics, but since two moderators were on the thread and didn't find the debate problematic, we weren't held to that standard either. The fact remains: you deleted my post responding to KLCCLK regarding the United States Flag Code, but you didn't delete his post mentioning that law. You deleted my posts providing historical examples of emblems, yet you left these posts that distort history and try to push the five-pointed star as a historical symbol. By those standards, this is just pure trolling:

Bwahahaha....the five-pointed star is an American historical emblem.
http://www.croatianhistory.net/etf/ple.jpg

IceClimber, where on earth did he dig that up!

What are those things around it, black crows pecking at it without being able to do anything!?

I can already see someone suggesting we put a five-pointed star right in the middle of the stars and stripes on the American flag.

You left Tomislav B's post about why an emblem needs a red field, but you deleted my response explaining why that isn't the reason for today's emblem.

You left the post where a user mentions his hometown during WWII and why he'll never accept an emblem with a white field, but you deleted the posts explaining why that logic is flawed.

And so on.

I won't even comment on the ad hominem implications ("attacking other users"). Only one person started the subtle insults, and lo and behold, some of his posts weren't deleted.

So, the way you’ve been deleting posts and choosing which ones stay up? It clearly wasn't impartial.

P.S. If I was being blunt when I used the word "shameful" in the title, then yeah, I was. But you get a quick reaction when people throw out baits like that 😁.

Sorry to barge in here, but since my name keeps getting tossed around, I might as well say something to defend myself.

My post about selling off my hometown deserves to stay up because it’s actually a subtle dig at Hasanbegović and his weird nostalgia for Nazi Germany.

It wasn't independent.
It wasn't even a real State.
It certainly wasn't America.

I mean, seriously, what kind of State—especially an "independent" one—actually trades away its own heritage like that?

Nicholas Watson said:Sorry to barge in, but since I'm being mentioned, I should probably say something to defend myself.

My post about selling my town deserves to stay because it points indirectly at Hasanbegović himself. Specifically, his nostalgia for Nazi Germany.

It wasn't Independent.
It wasn't a State.
It wasn't America.

What kind of State trades its own cradle like that?

Every single post here relates to Hasanbegović, either directly or indirectly. That photo is exactly why this whole debate shifted in that direction.

Your post belongs here just like all the other biased posts. Everyone thinks their own posts deserve to stay; otherwise, we wouldn't be writing them, and I wouldn't have started this thread in the first place.

The idea of California being the cradle of America is something that only recently took root in American society. Your view of it isn't any more accurate than my disagreement with that theory.

It’s actually good that you wrote this. It perfectly illustrates how certain opinions—even if they're backed by nothing but personal wishes and greetings—are considered acceptable enough to avoid deletion. Meanwhile, others aren't.
No one is attacking you personally, nor am I asking for your post to be deleted. Your post simply serves as an example of what I'm trying to get across.

Double standards.

Fine, you caught me
There. Is that historically accurate enough for you now?

Not relevant.

Thanks a lot for the censorship.

over and out.