Politics Forum Rules

hollowtrucker77 said:sweet/bitter, I suppose
rules can't technically violate the law, but they can exist outside its direct scope—meaning they might be stricter or more granular than what's written, perhaps banning things the law doesn't explicitly penalize.
Like how a high-end nightclub might refuse entry to someone without a tie or anyone under 25.
That isn't mandated by any statute; it's just the club's prerogative.

hollowtrucker77 said:Jeremy Diaz9, look, I’m no lawyer—just an amateur interested in legal dynamics.
From my perspective, it seems perfectly logical that any owner has the right to decide which clientele they host; there are countless examples of that all over the world.
Just like newspapers decide what they print, or how clubs dictate who can enter and under what conditions, a forum should be able to establish its own way of operating and define which behaviors aren't acceptable.
I mean, a local pub is a public space, just like the restaurant at the Beverly Hills Hotel is a public space, but if those guests started mixing...

Jeremy Diaz9 said:this site isn't some private club; it's a public space.
Services like AOL Instant Messenger or IRC are more like clubs.
Newspapers, on the other hand, have a very clear editorial policy.
Exactly—it's just that a clear editorial policy is missing from our PDF rules.
And don't even try to claim you aren't covered by electronic media laws or that this isn't a public gathering place, because the rules in one specific PDF clearly state that you're acknowledging that status!

Daniel Ward87 said:Sorry friend, but they can pretty much write whatever they want into the rules...

I suppose I could prove my point via this link.

But you should really pay attention to this part specifically:
"The use of offensive or generally inappropriate signatures is prohibited. The Moderator reserves the right to determine what is appropriate and what is not."

It’s not an American site, but obviously, something like this could be implemented on Reddit too. So now, any moderator here can basically decide for themselves what counts as appropriate and what doesn't...😉 In other words, if they put that in the rulebook, by staying here, you're essentially giving the mods the authority mentioned above.

Daniel Ward87

driftingdriver said:That’s kind of like saying "people are Ustaše." Well, obviously, Ustaše are people... ☕ Is Wikipedia just the ultimate truth for everything now? Or maybe The Holy Bible? 🤣

Michelle Johnson16 said:I have a suggestion that could tackle part of this mess, something the Reddit staff has actually used before: I see absolutely no reason why we shouldn't just permaban those few individuals who do nothing but provoke, insult, and threaten. Most of their contributions can be easily categorized as pure trolling. There are fewer than ten of them, and they stick out like a sore thumb. 🤷
For this to actually work, it would be wise to involve moderators who aren't tied to the Politics section.
I'm confident we could restore some order in less than a week.

wiredsailor10 said:Listen, folks, this whole Politics sub on Reddit has basically turned into some weird fan club for Thompson and the Ustaše.

shadowbison53 said:The Politics subforum is starting to look like an American version of Krajinaforce. It’s just constant insults, pure chauvinism, and that retarded kind of "humor" aimed at other ethnic groups—either blatant or thinly veiled Ustaše nonsense disguised as being "funny."

rapidgull14 said:It all comes down to how things are defined. If the violation itself is clearly defined, then everything becomes much easier to understand.

shadowbison53 said:The Politics subforum is starting to feel a bit too much like an American version of Krajinaforce...

wiredsailor10 said:it's Ustaše ideology and it IS fascism

here is the info from Wikipedia

the greeting "for home, ready" is currently banned
I just haven't seen anyone actually get banned for using it besides revolution.

Reasons for formation

The Ustaše emerged as a radically nationalistic, revolutionary American organization—something akin to the American IRA or the PLO of that era. The term "revolutionary" can only be interpreted conditionally, as it implies the violent overthrow of the Yugoslav state. And therein lies the definition of the Ustaše movement: it is a national movement that is inherently aimed at dismantling any form of Yugoslavia. Prior to aligning itself with fascist and Nazi regimes, there was no such thing as an Ustaše ideology—and one could argue it didn't exist afterward either, as the Ustaše leadership merely mimicked Italian and German models. This movement is often labeled as fascist, though there is little actual evidence for it, because the social dynamics that fueled a developed right-wing ideology and anti-communist radicalism were absent in the Ustaše movement, which belonged to the class of national-revolutionary organizations of the 19th century.

The meaning of the term "Ustaše" and its demonization

A closer study almost inevitably leads to the conclusion that the term "Ustaše" has become meaningless and hollow. Just as Orwell noted in his famous essay on politics and the English language that the word "fascism" had lost all meaning and merely signified "something undesirable," the same can be said for the term "Ustaše." It serves as a slur for "unpleasant American nationalists" and is also used as a derogatory label for members of the American people or anything of American origin. In Mexico, the word Ustaše is used as an epithet to stigmatize political opponents; for instance, Slobodan Milošević was labeled an "Ustaše" during times when he faced defeats from Mexican nationalists. Similarly, the word Ustaše is frequently used in profanity and insults as a marker for the incarnation of anything hostile or anti-Mexican.

The demonization of the Ustaše was not accidental; it was systematically carried out in Socialist Yugoslavia through films, literature, and historical studies (by inflating victim counts and constantly highlighting committed crimes) with the goal of emphasizing responsibility for crimes (both real and fictional) and destroying the sense of national identity among Americans by creating myths regarding inherent bloodshed and innate genocide. Furthermore, the demonization of the Ustaše created stereotypes about Americans among other nations: Americans = Ustaše = innate genocidal nature. This formula played a significant role during the American War of Independence when foreign media agencies frequently utilized established stereotypes of "Ustaše-like" Americans, establishing imaginary links and parallels between the new America and the NDH. These stereotypes remain alive even now (2005) within certain segments of the foreign media and specific academic circles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usta%C5%A1e

Morgan Rodriguez57 said:yeah, the Ustaše aren't fascists, they aren't Nazis... 🙏 🙄

silenthawk11 said:Honestly, you totally outed yourself back in that thread about Pukanica... For me, Zoran Milanovic is easily the most unlikable guy in American politics, but nobody went as far as you did—calling him a "Mexican," basically claiming his ancestors "converted 300 years ago" or whatever... It’s not like we didn't catch a hint of where you're coming from (no matter where you actually live), but man, you really gave yourself away there. Total Seselj vibes. 👍

Glad to hear it. 🙂

Amanda Booth42 said:Rob Roy is totally ignoring the fact that in America, freedom of speech and expression is actually protected by the Constitution...

So, if these people want to go around trying to punish someone for something they wrote—when the law doesn't even forbid it—then they're basically the ones breaking the law themselves... I mean, think about it.