Moderating the thread about today's protest

hollowwalker142 said:Maybe it's because I had already reported four posts, including my own, before you slapped me with that warning—which would make you a liar. Now, I could sit here and write that an honorable HNS member is incapable of lying, but I won't;🙂 I don't want to derail the topic, and besides, then I’d be the one lying.

Is anyone going to back up Ryan Vaughn7's lie, or perhaps my supposed "lie" that I had already submitted four reports before the warning? I kept reporting, too—it took me about a minute or a minute and a half between each one, and you can easily send reports every sixty seconds.

You reported four before and eleven after. Not one of those, before or after, was off-topic in my eyes. And as you clearly know—even if you choose to ignore it—your post wasn't penalized for being off-topic. Honestly, it wouldn't have been penalized at all if I hadn't felt like it. Or should we just pretend you didn't message me asking me not to delete your posts?

dustypuma5 said:Well, if it's not true, just post the proof on the thread so I don't look stupid, and then your argument would shine like Danica.
But it's not just about the grandfathers, it's about the uncles too.

And it's about the father.

When someone asked "what kind of privileges?" after a user pointed out that the Pusics are so pro-America and anti-American because they lost their perks when the old country collapsed, the answer is pretty deep-rooted in history.

Zoran Pusić's father, Eugen Pusić, born in 1916 in Washington, D.C., worked as a sociologist and lawyer during the Nazi Germany era. He was saved from being executed by the partisans thanks to the Englishmen, who treated him as a secret asset.
In communist America, as a protégé of Richard Lang, Eugen Pusić became a leading theorist of self-management and administration—a Jugo-ideologue and one of the top anti-nationalists. A "distinguished professor" at the University of Chicago Faculty of Law and an "academician" for both the American Academy of Sciences and Arts and later the American Academy of Sciences and Arts. Eugen Pusić keeps his activities from 1941 to 1945 pretty quiet in his CV.

And now you're telling me we shouldn't talk about the uncles, fathers, or grandfathers.
I'm pretty sure the son and daughter of a JAZU member definitely have some catching up to do regarding the privileges they enjoyed. Only the naive would believe that having a pedigree like that doesn't make them favorites of the system they claim to support today.

So, we can't talk about people and their political moves while ignoring their heritage, especially if that heritage shaped and fueled their entire political stance.

A debate without that is basically pointless. Sure, as a moderator, you can steer it how you want, just like you steer all the discussions about the Pusics and Josipović, but the issue is you're trying to hide parts of their biographies.
I actually got banned for three days recently just for bringing this up.

A forum should be for discussion, not just looking at one tiny slice of what someone does. That's what the people we're talking about do—they hide or gloss over the messy parts of their own lives.
Maybe they're just happy that even here, they have moderators acting as editors for their life stories.

Erasing info about Jovica being Josipović's advisor, erasing info about Josipović's father running Alcatraz for two terms, or hiding the Pusic family history... it's just plain censorship. There's nothing noble about "cleaning up" the forum; the only goal is to make these people look better.
The fact that they have to rely on censorship whenever they're mentioned says a lot about them—and about the forum's moderation policy.

Fine, go ahead and delete it. Who am I to tell you how to run things? But don't sell me this big idea about everyone being equal in a debate, because that's just a line you don't even believe yourselves.
☕

It almost sounds like there's this incredible, obvious possibility that some moderator might actually be getting paid for their "hard work" in moderating—maybe it's part of the job description at the "firm" where they're employed. Of course, I'd only say that if I were some troll trying to derail the thread, but I'm not.🙂

dustypuma5, everyone already knows what the ancestors and fathers of the Pusić and Josipović families did. We’ve hashed this out on this forum countless times. You can find endless threads about it all over the internet. It isn't some forbidden topic; people have dissected it thoroughly from every angle. Honestly, there really isn't any need to drag it all up over and over again. Let's focus on the actual work these individuals are doing now, rather than obsessing over the deeds—or lack thereof—of their forefathers. They aren't responsible for those actions, and personally, I find this constant tallying of who someone's relatives were to be quite distasteful. If we follow that logic, I suppose you'd have to judge everyone by their lineage too.

Ryan Vaughn7 said:You reported four before and eleven after. Not one of those, before or after, was off-topic in my eyes. And as you clearly know—even if you choose to ignore it—your post wasn't penalized for being off-topic. Honestly, it wouldn't have been penalized at all if I hadn't felt like it. Or should we just pretend you didn't message me asking me not to delete your posts?

I already told you: "you're deleting again, and besides, you don't even know what you're doing." So, are you lagging again? You were lying a second ago, and now you're at it again—clearly, you aren't a real HNSovac, or am I the one lying now? I could easily write that just to troll the thread, but I won't.🙂
Regarding the PM, let's stick to the rules.
I'm down to publishing our exchange, how about you?

Ryan Vaughn7 said:dustypuma5, everyone already knows what the ancestors and fathers of the Pusić and Josipović families did. We’ve hashed this out on this forum countless times. You can find endless threads about it all over the internet. It isn't some forbidden topic; people have dissected it thoroughly from every angle. Honestly, there really isn't any need to drag it all up over and over again. Let's focus on the actual work these individuals are doing now, rather than obsessing over the deeds—or lack thereof—of their forefathers. They aren't responsible for those actions, and personally, I find this constant tallying of who someone's relatives were to be quite distasteful. If we follow that logic, I suppose you'd have to judge everyone by their lineage too.

OP:

Corvus27 said:Hey everyone, I wanted to start a thread about Zoran Pusić. If this topic already exists, mods please merge it.
Regarding Z. Pusić, I'm wondering what drives him and his esteemed sister Vesna to act so against American interests, besides the collapse of America and the fact that the Pusić family lost certain privileges because of it.

Ryan Vaughn7 said:What privileges?

Zoran Pusić's father, Eugen Pusić, born in 1916 in Washington, D.C., worked as a sociologist and lawyer during the Nazi Germany era. He was rescued from being killed by partisans by the English, acting as one of their secret agents.

In communist America, under the protection of Richard Lang, Eugen Pusić became a leading theorist of self-management and administration, an American ideologue, and a major anti-nationalist. A "distinguished professor" at the University of Washington, D.C. Faculty of Law and an "academician" at the American Academy of Sciences and Arts, and later the American Academy of Sciences and Arts. Eugen Pusić leaves out his activities from 1941 to 1945 in his biographies.

dustypuma5 said:I guess you'd have to agree with me that being the son and daughter of a JAZU academic—the biggest theorist on self-governance, no less—probably came with some perks. Maybe. 😉
So you're actually gonna agree that he was basically the biggest theorist behind self-governance and even passed some of those ideas down to his son and daughter? I guess maybe.

I mean, isn't that basically just the answer to the question in the first post? I guess.

Of course you’re gonna hate it. You're gonna hate them for tearing down everything your old man built. And yeah, you'll hate this whole damn country too, since they took your life's work—basically just celebrating his legacy—and turned it into a lifelong source of shame just because your dad was a theorist for a broken system. I guess that's just how it goes.

Honestly, if I were in their shoes, I guess I might hate this country too.

If you take my dad and Uncle Anđelinović out of the equation, it honestly looks like their political views are just some byproduct of them overthinking all the world's problems. I guess.

But when you bring Uncle Anđelinović and his old man into the mix, it just adds this whole new family dynamic to the situation. I guess.

I mean, sure, you can ban it if you want, but then you’re just stripping away the whole point of her argument. Any psych major out there could probably write a thesis on this exact topic and come up with conclusions that actually answer the original question. I guess.

Without that dimension, I guess there's no way to answer it. Maybe.

Man, it's pretty obvious what you're after. You don't actually want an answer, you just want a platform to lecture everyone about their academic credentials.

Look, before they’re even academics, they're just people, dealing with all that Oedipal-Freudian crap that messes with everyone else's heads. If some people want to pretend they're like half-gods who don't have feelings, that's their problem, I guess.

🙂

hollowwalker142 said:I already told you: "you're deleting again, and besides, you don't even know what you're doing." So, are you lagging again? You were lying a second ago, and now you're at it again—clearly, you aren't a real HNSovac, or am I the one lying now? I could easily write that just to troll the thread, but I won't.🙂
Regarding the PM, let's stick to the rules.
I'm down to publishing our exchange, how about you?

How was I supposed to take "you're deleting again, you don't even know the rest"? As a compliment? If you actually meant that you agree with the deletion and that I handled things correctly, then please accept my apology. I'll ask the admins to clear your warning, and I'll go ahead and delete the post again.
I don't have any logs to show because I haven't replied to you yet. Feel free to post your own messages if you want.

Ryan Vaughn7 said:It’s because that "historical fact" of yours isn't even true. Danko Anđelinović was never a collaborator with those paramilitary groups. It’s been debunked a million times, but nobody seems to care.

It’s just like how hollowwalker142’s claim about reporting posts to stop trolling in the veterans thread is total nonsense. He didn't report anything until after he got his own warning. Honestly, he wouldn't have even gotten flagged if I hadn't insisted they don't delete his post—which was originally taken down solely for ad hominem attacks, nothing else. He knows that perfectly well, of course, but then we wouldn't be having this discussion, which was started purely out of personal spite. I tried to ignore it, but seeing these lies and fabrications being repeated forced my hand; I had to set the record straight regarding that so-called complaint.

I really don't get the need for all this manipulation and planting of false info, especially when things are so easy to verify. Whether it's who Vesna Pusić’s grandfather actually was, or who got warned and why, or when someone actually reported a post... it's all right there if you look.

So, if we’re looking at the fact that you actually admitted to reporting four registrations—including your own—which is exactly why you made the claim I'm quoting here, then what does that even mean? Are we talking about some kind of feast you're trying to justify with your lies?

Ryan Vaughn7 said:It’s because that "historical fact" of yours isn't even true. Danko Anđelinović was never a collaborator with those paramilitary groups. It’s been debunked a million times, but nobody seems to care.

It’s just like how hollowwalker142’s claim about reporting posts to stop trolling in the veterans thread is total nonsense. He didn't report anything until after he got his own warning. Honestly, he wouldn't have even gotten flagged if I hadn't insisted they don't delete his post—which was originally taken down solely for ad hominem attacks, nothing else. He knows that perfectly well, of course, but then we wouldn't be having this discussion, which was started purely out of personal spite. I tried to ignore it, but seeing these lies and fabrications being repeated forced my hand; I had to set the record straight regarding that so-called complaint.

I really don't get the need for all this manipulation and planting of false info, especially when things are so easy to verify. Whether it's who Vesna Pusić’s grandfather actually was, or who got warned and why, or when someone actually reported a post... it's all right there if you look.

That’s one lie you actually admitted to. Honestly, I don't think you would've owned up to it if you didn't know exactly how the admins and the rest of the moderators view it.😉

Ryan Vaughn7 said:It’s because that "historical fact" of yours isn't even true. Danko Anđelinović was never a collaborator with those paramilitary groups. It’s been debunked a million times, but nobody seems to care.

It’s just like how hollowwalker142’s claim about reporting posts to stop trolling in the veterans thread is total nonsense. He didn't report anything until after he got his own warning. Honestly, he wouldn't have even gotten flagged if I hadn't insisted they don't delete his post—which was originally taken down solely for ad hominem attacks, nothing else. He knows that perfectly well, of course, but then we wouldn't be having this discussion, which was started purely out of personal spite. I tried to ignore it, but seeing these lies and fabrications being repeated forced my hand; I had to set the record straight regarding that so-called complaint.

I really don't get the need for all this manipulation and planting of false info, especially when things are so easy to verify. Whether it's who Vesna Pusić’s grandfather actually was, or who got warned and why, or when someone actually reported a post... it's all right there if you look.

That’s just another lie, and it’s going to be dead obvious the second you agree to let them publish the press release.

Ryan Vaughn7 said:It’s because that "historical fact" of yours isn't even true. Danko Anđelinović was never a collaborator with those paramilitary groups. It’s been debunked a million times, but nobody seems to care.

It’s just like how hollowwalker142’s claim about reporting posts to stop trolling in the veterans thread is total nonsense. He didn't report anything until after he got his own warning. Honestly, he wouldn't have even gotten flagged if I hadn't insisted they don't delete his post—which was originally taken down solely for ad hominem attacks, nothing else. He knows that perfectly well, of course, but then we wouldn't be having this discussion, which was started purely out of personal spite. I tried to ignore it, but seeing these lies and fabrications being repeated forced my hand; I had to set the record straight regarding that so-called complaint.

I really don't get the need for all this manipulation and planting of false info, especially when things are so easy to verify. Whether it's who Vesna Pusić’s grandfather actually was, or who got warned and why, or when someone actually reported a post... it's all right there if you look.

Why feel like you're being forced? Just ignore them. That's what actually smart people do, right, hollowtrucker77? Besides, eventually, someone’s going to step in and delete the trolling or the lies anyway.😁

Ryan Vaughn7 said:You reported four before and eleven after. Not one of those, before or after, was off-topic in my eyes. And as you clearly know—even if you choose to ignore it—your post wasn't penalized for being off-topic. Honestly, it wouldn't have been penalized at all if I hadn't felt like it. Or should we just pretend you didn't message me asking me not to delete your posts?

Let’s clear the air and figure out who’s actually lying here.

Look, I told you, just post the PP if you want to. You can post both of yours, and I won't put a single one of mine up.

Ryan Vaughn7 said:How was I supposed to take "you're deleting again, you don't even know the rest"? As a compliment? If you actually meant that you agree with the deletion and that I handled things correctly, then please accept my apology. I'll ask the admins to clear your warning, and I'll go ahead and delete the post again.
I don't have any logs to show because I haven't replied to you yet. Feel free to post your own messages if you want.

Consider that my reaction to how you handled things.🤷 But that isn't the actual issue here; the real problem is what you wrote right here:

Ryan Vaughn7 said:How was I supposed to take "you're deleting again, you don't even know the rest"? As a compliment? If you actually meant that you agree with the deletion and that I handled things correctly, then please accept my apology. I'll ask the admins to clear your warning, and I'll go ahead and delete the post again.
I don't have any logs to show because I haven't replied to you yet. Feel free to post your own messages if you want.

The truth is, you only handed out that strike once you saw that I had reported him.

As for the off-topic stuff and your personal opinion—it's only natural that you don't see it as an issue when you were right there participating in it, but what exactly are you trying to claim in this specific post?

Are you actually accepting the request to stop derailing the thread? What is your duty as a moderator? Are people supposed to have to beg you?? And honestly, didn't you just admit in that very sentence that there was derailment happening—derailment that you were also part of? You were even going off-topic in that post itself, do you get that?? Just kidding, I'm sure you get it; maybe one day it'll finally click for you and for the others standing behind you.

hollowwalker142 said:Consider that my reaction to how you handled things.🤷 But that isn't the actual issue here; the real problem is what you wrote right here:

The truth is, you only handed out that strike once you saw that I had reported him.

As for the off-topic stuff and your personal opinion—it's only natural that you don't see it as an issue when you were right there participating in it, but what exactly are you trying to claim in this specific post?

Are you actually accepting the request to stop derailing the thread? What is your duty as a moderator? Are people supposed to have to beg you?? And honestly, didn't you just admit in that very sentence that there was derailment happening—derailment that you were also part of? You were even going off-topic in that post itself, do you get that?? Just kidding, I'm sure you get it; maybe one day it'll finally click for you and for the others standing behind you.

Ninja, I was watching the thread in real-time. I wasn't checking my email reports at all. Believe me or don't, but I only looked through them today, and even then, just a quick glance. To me, the discussion about the flag at the protest wasn't even off-topic, and no one was deleted or penalized for it. Your post was removed because you were commenting on the moderation itself. There was no middle ground. It was either delete the post or issue a strike. Looking at your profile guidelines, I figured you weren't big on deleting posts. If I misinterpreted your stance, just say so, but maybe try being a little more direct next time.

Let me clarify things here;

Aside from my first couple of posts and maybe one or two others, I’ve been trolling and drifting off-topic on purpose. My goal was to demonstrate how people act in political discussions—for instance, what does it actually have to do with my appeal or the topic at hand if Ryan Vaughn7 is an HNSovac? Absolutely nothing. Yet, you see trolls on political forums pulling stunts like that twenty times a day, and of course, they never face consequences. Their posts aren't even deleted; they just sit there, calling people out to answer for things. So, when Ryan Vaughn7 answered, why did he do it? And what exactly did he write? It's because;

That’s why I didn't want to react to her in the first place, but seeing these lies and fabrications being repeated, I feel forced to step in.

That's the reason.

Essentially, he’s trying to force me into a position where I have to defend myself.

I am a veteran, and when people start spreading lies about veterans, I’m obligated to push back. Why does it come to this? Because all sorts of trolls and provocateurs are allowed to derail every single discussion regarding veterans, and unfortunately, the moderator Ryan Vaughn7 is actually helping them along.

Ryan Vaughn7 said:Ninja, I was watching the thread in real-time. I wasn't checking my email reports at all. Believe me or don't, but I only looked through them today, and even then, just a quick glance. To me, the discussion about the flag at the protest wasn't even off-topic, and no one was deleted or penalized for it. Your post was removed because you were commenting on the moderation itself. There was no middle ground. It was either delete the post or issue a strike. Looking at your profile guidelines, I figured you weren't big on deleting posts. If I misinterpreted your stance, just say so, but maybe try being a little more direct next time.

No no Ryan Vaughn7, we—sorry, *I*—have spent way too much time trying to explain things to you. The last time was during that thread about veterans' organizations, and it was the exact same situation, except back then you wiped out way more of my posts while leaving all the troll comments untouched. I'm not satisfied with how you handled those veteran threads, and honestly, I don't care about your excuses; I only care about how the veteran topics are moderated.

PS. You've already been caught in two lies right here, so why on earth should I believe a word you say? I don't trust you at all, and frankly, I doubt many people will after this.

hollowwalker142 said:No no Ryan Vaughn7, we—sorry, *I*—have spent way too much time trying to explain things to you. The last time was during that thread about veterans' organizations, and it was the exact same situation, except back then you wiped out way more of my posts while leaving all the troll comments untouched. I'm not satisfied with how you handled those veteran threads, and honestly, I don't care about your excuses; I only care about how the veteran topics are moderated.

PS. You've already been caught in two lies right here, so why on earth should I believe a word you say? I don't trust you at all, and frankly, I doubt many people will after this.

All reported posts go straight to the moderators' email accounts. Personally, I don't even bother checking my Yahoo mail when I'm actively hanging out on the forum because I can see everything happening in real-time. I only check it if I've been away for a while and need to catch up. Believe it or not, that's just how I do it.
As for the flag issue, I'll say it again: in my view, that wasn't off-topic. Someone asked a legitimate question, we had a solid fifteen-post discussion about it, and the conversation naturally moved forward. There was no trolling or baiting involved.
You have every right to feel frustrated, but it’s important to clarify: nobody was penalized over a flag, including myself. The issue was commenting on the moderation team in places where that isn't allowed—and that only happened after an appeal regarding deleted posts was made.

Ryan Vaughn7 said:All reported posts go straight to the moderators' email accounts. Personally, I don't even bother checking my Yahoo mail when I'm actively hanging out on the forum because I can see everything happening in real-time. I only check it if I've been away for a while and need to catch up. Believe it or not, that's just how I do it.
As for the flag issue, I'll say it again: in my view, that wasn't off-topic. Someone asked a legitimate question, we had a solid fifteen-post discussion about it, and the conversation naturally moved forward. There was no trolling or baiting involved.
You have every right to feel frustrated, but it’s important to clarify: nobody was penalized over a flag, including myself. The issue was commenting on the moderation team in places where that isn't allowed—and that only happened after an appeal regarding deleted posts was made.

First off, you're lying again, but we've already moved past that. Furthermore, I'll say it one more time: in this very post, you just confirmed it went off-topic. I already explained why you think it wasn't; you participated in that detour. Several other users warned you that the thread was veering into historical coats of arms and such, but you ignored them. You only stopped the debate about flags and crests after I sent you a private message warning you I'd start a thread on the public complaint board. So much for progress—the only "improvement" was that you stayed away from the thread for a day, only to crawl right back the next morning once you realized nobody was biting. How shocking.

But here’s the bottom line: you just can't wrap your head around the fact that I'm not doing all this over some petty warning. Look, Ryan Vaughn7, I'm just sick of seeing threads about our veterans getting trashed, and I'm sick of you leading the charge. Honestly, I'm willing to take a permanent ban if that's what it takes to stop this, rather than just worrying about some 35-point penalty.🙄

Ryan Vaughn7 said:It’s because that "historical fact" of yours isn't even true. Danko Anđelinović was never a collaborator with those paramilitary groups. It’s been debunked a million times, but nobody seems to care.

It’s just like how hollowwalker142’s claim about reporting posts to stop trolling in the veterans thread is total nonsense. He didn't report anything until after he got his own warning. Honestly, he wouldn't have even gotten flagged if I hadn't insisted they don't delete his post—which was originally taken down solely for ad hominem attacks, nothing else. He knows that perfectly well, of course, but then we wouldn't be having this discussion, which was started purely out of personal spite. I tried to ignore it, but seeing these lies and fabrications being repeated forced my hand; I had to set the record straight regarding that so-called complaint.

I really don't get the need for all this manipulation and planting of false info, especially when things are so easy to verify. Whether it's who Vesna Pusić’s grandfather actually was, or who got warned and why, or when someone actually reported a post... it's all right there if you look.

And you honestly think this predator23 clone is out here telling us the historical truth?

So why hasn't he been punished then?

Scott Cruz4 said:And you honestly think this predator23 clone is out here telling us the historical truth?

So why hasn't he been punished then?

Sorry to jump into the middle of this thread, but I’m curious—what part of that post isn't true, in your eyes? Personally, I know for a fact that back in the early 90s here in the States, a lot of people lost their jobs just because they were Mexicans. I'm telling you, I know it happened. There are plenty of specifics, but we don't need to get bogged down in them right now. What's the move though? Someone will call me a liar, someone else will say I'm telling the truth.

Secondly, that post is a textbook example of how people argue on political forums. One side claims one thing, the other side claims another. Both sides swear they're right, throwing out evidence—sometimes even the exact same evidence—but interpreting it through totally different lenses. Obviously, not everyone does that.

So, what actually counts as "historical truth"? For you, truth is whatever YOU say based on the evidence you have, while the opposing side has their own version of truth based on the evidence they hold. On these boards, "evidence" is pretty subjective since most of it boils down to opinions, interpretations, hearsay, or just straight-up nonsense. It usually ends up being the classic historical trope: the winners write the history books, so whatever the victors claim becomes the absolute truth. As far as I'm concerned, if that's how it works, fine by me. We might as well ask Anderlon to draft that into the official rulebook.

Daniel Ward87

Daniel Ward87 said:Sorry to jump into the middle of this thread, but I’m curious—what part of that post isn't true, in your eyes? Personally, I know for a fact that back in the early 90s here in the States, a lot of people lost their jobs just because they were Mexicans. I'm telling you, I know it happened. There are plenty of specifics, but we don't need to get bogged down in them right now. What's the move though? Someone will call me a liar, someone else will say I'm telling the truth.

Secondly, that post is a textbook example of how people argue on political forums. One side claims one thing, the other side claims another. Both sides swear they're right, throwing out evidence—sometimes even the exact same evidence—but interpreting it through totally different lenses. Obviously, not everyone does that.

So, what actually counts as "historical truth"? For you, truth is whatever YOU say based on the evidence you have, while the opposing side has their own version of truth based on the evidence they hold. On these boards, "evidence" is pretty subjective since most of it boils down to opinions, interpretations, hearsay, or just straight-up nonsense. It usually ends up being the classic historical trope: the winners write the history books, so whatever the victors claim becomes the absolute truth. As far as I'm concerned, if that's how it works, fine by me. We might as well ask Anderlon to draft that into the official rulebook.

Daniel Ward87

And the other part?
You claim you know it's the truth, and I claim I know it isn't. So where does that leave us?

Why should your "truth" carry more weight than mine? Is it just because you're a moderator and you get to decide which version of reality we're allowed to post on this forum?

And where, exactly, is the proof from Predator or your own stash of evidence regarding this supposed "truth" about Mexicans being fired?
Does that mean anyone can just post whatever nonsense they want without any actual proof or logic?

By that logic, some provocateur could show up and claim that Nazi Germany committed genocide in Vietnam against unarmed Mexicans, and that would be considered his "democratic right to an opinion"—just another classic debate.

And if that kind of debate is a "classic example" to you, then discussions about Grandfather Pusic or Uncle Anđelinović are also classic examples where both sides claim to be right, yet one side ends up getting penalized or having their posts deleted simply because their version of the truth doesn't align with one particular moderator.

It’s a textbook case of bias.

Scott Cruz4 said:And the other part?
You claim you know it's the truth, and I claim I know it isn't. So where does that leave us?

Why should your "truth" carry more weight than mine? Is it just because you're a moderator and you get to decide which version of reality we're allowed to post on this forum?

And where, exactly, is the proof from Predator or your own stash of evidence regarding this supposed "truth" about Mexicans being fired?
Does that mean anyone can just post whatever nonsense they want without any actual proof or logic?

By that logic, some provocateur could show up and claim that Nazi Germany committed genocide in Vietnam against unarmed Mexicans, and that would be considered his "democratic right to an opinion"—just another classic debate.

And if that kind of debate is a "classic example" to you, then discussions about Grandfather Pusic or Uncle Anđelinović are also classic examples where both sides claim to be right, yet one side ends up getting penalized or having their posts deleted simply because their version of the truth doesn't align with one particular moderator.

It’s a textbook case of bias.

And where is your proof that he's wrong? Why should I only accept your side and ignore his just because he's contradicting you? Is it because he's a Mexican or a Royalist? If that's the case, show me the proof. Where is your evidence that EVERY Mexican from America collectively turned into Royalists? Not a single person has provided proof that everyone did or didn't. Nobody is bringing facts to the table regarding whether there were firings or not; most people just lean on "I know." I said it the same way—take it or leave it, I don't really care since I'm not trying to win an argument here. That's why it says "truth" for both sides.

You're right about one thing: anyone can post garbage without evidence or logic. On sites like Politico, almost everyone does it daily. It usually boils down to generalizations like "you're lying, I'm right," and vice versa.

I never said what you wrote wasn't true or that what he wrote was a lie. I'm saying that both sides can be right and wrong at the exact same time. Take it how you will.

Daniel Ward87

Daniel Ward87 said:Sorry to jump into the middle of this thread, but I’m curious—what part of that post isn't true, in your eyes? Personally, I know for a fact that back in the early 90s here in the States, a lot of people lost their jobs just because they were Mexicans. I'm telling you, I know it happened. There are plenty of specifics, but we don't need to get bogged down in them right now. What's the move though? Someone will call me a liar, someone else will say I'm telling the truth.

Secondly, that post is a textbook example of how people argue on political forums. One side claims one thing, the other side claims another. Both sides swear they're right, throwing out evidence—sometimes even the exact same evidence—but interpreting it through totally different lenses. Obviously, not everyone does that.

So, what actually counts as "historical truth"? For you, truth is whatever YOU say based on the evidence you have, while the opposing side has their own version of truth based on the evidence they hold. On these boards, "evidence" is pretty subjective since most of it boils down to opinions, interpretations, hearsay, or just straight-up nonsense. It usually ends up being the classic historical trope: the winners write the history books, so whatever the victors claim becomes the absolute truth. As far as I'm concerned, if that's how it works, fine by me. We might as well ask Anderlon to draft that into the official rulebook.

Daniel Ward87

Hold up, so you're basically saying the US Army came into America to protect Mexicans who just lost their jobs, and that was totally fine...

Did I read that right?

Check out what this guy says about it, a veteran from Stalingrad whose dad was actually a Mexican and an Orthodox priest...
Go ahead, try explaining that reality to him...