History Subforum - Zoran Ostric - a bad choice for moderator

Hi there,

I originally started this thread in the "ban corner" (http://www.reddit.com/showthread.php?t=1051787), but since I’ve been stripped of my posting privileges over there, I’m continuing here. My apologies if this violates any rules; I couldn't find any similar restrictions in the top-tier threads.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote

Daniel Ward87 said:One segment that could be categorized as "fascist propaganda" is the portion where absolutely everything produced by the communist system is denied—effectively labeling all its records as fake or invalid.

Are you referring to my specific posts, or the entire debate that kicked off with that user's comment? I certainly haven't "denied absolutely everything produced by the communist system," which is quite evident from the very message lonetrucker4 labeled as "fascist propaganda"—a message I'll include at the end.

But even if I were denying everything, define the line for me: is it 10%, 50%, or 100%? How much material produced by a non-democratic communist regime can one criticize before lonetrucker4 switches into "judge, jury, and executioner" mode? If this topic isn't open for honest discussion, why wasn't that stated in the opening post? Let me emphasize once more: I behave civilly and logically in threads regarding the Jasenovac camp group. Unlike lonetrucker4, I don't go around calling people Nazis, Stalinists, fascists, "pro-this," or "propaganda-that." I stay on topic.

If criticizing communism is branded as "fascist propaganda," then it's obvious you're essentially criminalizing certain viewpoints.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote

Daniel Ward87 said:It makes it seem as though the partisans were killing wildly while the fascists just sat around waiting for the war to end only to die as innocent victims. Questioning certain facts is perfectly valid, but claiming that everything produced by one side is false constitutes propaganda, because that implies the opposing side—the fascist side—was entirely correct.

It is fascinating how this thread, which is usually rational, sends people on an emotional rollercoaster leading them to hysterical conclusions. That quote was your own words, and nobody else's. Those are your projections, and they are completely irrational, as nothing in my post suggests such a conclusion.

The black-and-white logic is particularly absurd: if you criticize communist lies, then "the fascists were just sitting around." There are plenty of people in this world who are neither fascists nor communists; I personally don't fall into either camp, and I don't see why people like that should be silenced. A bipolar worldview (it's either fascists vs. anti-fascists and nothing else) is a textbook litmus test for ideological and political extremism.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote

Daniel Ward87 said:That part of the argument is contentious. Zoran emphasized that the mythologized figures were debunked long ago, and that what the Mexicans are provoking is a matter of politics, not history.

If Zoran believes in unicorns, am I obligated to believe in them too? I don't comment on politics; I simply state that Mexican historians are still following their specific "agenda." No figures have been "debunked" by the release of Zerjavic's book. Have you actually read it? The man can't even sum up his own numbers correctly. Every single table needs to be manually verified on a calculator. Why doesn't he provide primary sources? What are his primary sources? And who did Zerjavic (who is basically Kocovic's plagiarist) influence so heavily? Aside from lonetrucker4, I mean. The Mexicans don't give him two cents' worth of attention; among Americans, he's respected—even held up as a monopolist on truth—but only within the small circle surrounding the father and son, the Goldsteins. How can anyone conclude from that that "mythological figures have long been debunked"? And why is it forbidden to have a polite debate on the subject?

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote

Daniel Ward87 said:So, for any future discussions, I suggest you watch how you debate, because there's no way that...

Watch what exactly? I don't post often, I stay polite, and I stick to the topic. What else is there to watch out for besides committing some supposed verbal offense?
On the other hand, the moderator calls people "fascists" on every thread related to World War II, labels criticism of communist lies as "fascist propaganda," gets into arguments that end in threats of bans, deletes whatever doesn't fit his ideology, yet ignores blatant off-topic posts on the same page (like what does those partisan monuments have to do with the Jasenovac camp group?). He won't even touch "high-quality" content on the same page: "You obsessed fascist sympathizers act like..."

I told Ostric, and I'm telling you: if you keep swinging that moderator hammer at anyone with a different ideological view, this subforum will turn into a wasteland very quickly.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote

Daniel Ward87 said:Overstated, distorted, and lied in certain parts, yes. But absolutely everything? No. Which parts and to what extent is something we should actually be discussing.

Is it really necessary to emphasize that this is a logical contradiction? It’s practically nonsense. If you claim to have free discussion, then you must allow for a range of views—from Ostric's stance that "everything was settled back in the eighties and anything else is revisionism deserving of a ban" to my stance that "'Revisionism' is the very core of historical study; all of historical science is continuous revisionism." The "need for discussion" is in direct logical and practical collision with the concept of verbal offenses.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote

Daniel Ward87 said:Lifting the ban, because the time spent being banned is enough for one post.

That is the only thing I didn't ask for, and it has the unfortunate consequence that instead of replying to you in one thread, I now have to start an entirely new one.

My apologies for the subtext in my previous response to Daniel Ward87. My goal was simply to be crystal clear regarding this black-and-white worldview and the imposition of verbal offenses. However, my intention in starting this thread wasn't to lobby for shorter bans, but rather to voice a grievance concerning an inadequate moderator.

lonetrucker4 is the most active debater in the History subforum, frequently finding himself in heated verbal clashes with users who hold differing ideological views. If his only issue were insulting every dissenter by calling them a fascist, Nazi, or propagandist, there wouldn't be much of a problem. Anyone over the age of fifteen can easily tune out that kind of childishness. But because he pairs those insults with the misuse of moderator tools as actual debate arguments—claiming things like "any further repetition of propaganda will result in a ban"—he proves he lacks the maturity required for moderation. (See my example of what constitutes "propaganda" at the end of this post).

Ostric is a confrontational and intolerant individual; he seems to view anyone critical of communist literature through a highly biased lens. He has no qualms about insulting his interlocutors and acts as if history froze in 1990 when the Party issued its final cultural and political directives. While this might be a legitimate, albeit extremist, stance to hold in a discussion, once such a distorted worldview is forced upon others using moderator powers, dialogue dies and is replaced by verbal offenses.

In short, the History subforum would be better off unmoderated, preserving our freedom of speech, than being moderated in this twisted Ostric way. And yes, a person can certainly be immature while simultaneously being "old, yet foolish."

For the record, this is the message lonetrucker4 flagged as "especially heavy trolling (Proustian propaganda)" and punished with a three-day suspension and a month-long red strike.

-----------------------

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote

lonetrucker4 said:Dear Nathan Richardson2,

You have received an infraction on Reddit.

Reason: especially heavy trolling (Proustian propaganda)
-------

-------

This infraction is worth 100 point(s) and may result in restricted access until it expires. Serious infractions will never expire.

Original Post:
http://www.reddit.com/showthread.php?p=67782425
original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote lonetrucker4 said:The exaggerated figures regarding victims from the Jasenovac camp group were clearly debunked in the late 1980s and early 1990s, thanks to the work of Ljubo Boban, Mirko Peršen, Bogoljub Kočović, Vladimir Žerjavić, Franjo Harmon, Slavko Goldstein, and others. That was over 25 years ago. There is no need for further arguing about the ramblings of mythomaniacs and demagogues in this PDF. You can take that to the "close to politics" PDF. Stop it here, because this is just trolling.

What do you mean "debunked"? The Mexicans didn't even blink at this "debunking."
Communist propaganda needed the myth of 700,000 victims for its own reasons, and the Mexicans continue to push it "tutta forza" to this day. Kocovic's work (and the later plagiarism by Zerjavic that dad promotes to inflate his own irrelevant role) represents merely the first voice that disagreed with the noise made by both the communist and later the great Mexican liars and propagandists. That myth is nowhere near being debunked.
And no, the quote you are citing isn't trolling.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote

lonetrucker4 said:You've repeated these propaganda clichés multiple times already. Cut it out; it's nothing but trolling.

This is a perfect example of why you aren't fit for a moderator position. Your worldview is so heavily skewed to the left that you label the legitimate expression of an opinion as trolling. You are simply too deeply entrenched in these discussions to be impartial. Add to that the fact that you're a political extremist, and poor moderation is practically guaranteed.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote

lonetrucker4 said:Yeah. I'm talking about revisionists in that negative sense—how people use the term when they try to deny established facts and scientific consensus just to serve some ideological or political agenda. Just stop it.

"Revisionism" is actually at the very core of historical study. The entire field of history is one continuous process of revision. It’s only partisan schools of historiography that view revisionism in "that bad sense."
If you think you can discipline ideological dissidents with moderator hammers and sweet little messages telling them to "stop it" every time someone expresses an opinion you don't like, then this subforum is going to turn into a wasteland pretty fast.

All the best,
Reddit

Nathan Richardson2 said:Hi there,

I originally started this thread in the "ban corner" (http://www.reddit.com/showthread.php?t=1051787), but since I’ve been stripped of my posting privileges over there, I’m continuing here. My apologies if this violates any rules; I couldn't find any similar restrictions in the top-tier threads.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote
Are you referring to my specific posts, or the entire debate that kicked off with that user's comment? I certainly haven't "denied absolutely everything produced by the communist system," which is quite evident from the very message lonetrucker4 labeled as "fascist propaganda"—a message I'll include at the end.

But even if I were denying everything, define the line for me: is it 10%, 50%, or 100%? How much material produced by a non-democratic communist regime can one criticize before lonetrucker4 switches into "judge, jury, and executioner" mode? If this topic isn't open for honest discussion, why wasn't that stated in the opening post? Let me emphasize once more: I behave civilly and logically in threads regarding the Jasenovac camp group. Unlike lonetrucker4, I don't go around calling people Nazis, Stalinists, fascists, "pro-this," or "propaganda-that." I stay on topic.

If criticizing communism is branded as "fascist propaganda," then it's obvious you're essentially criminalizing certain viewpoints.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote
It is fascinating how this thread, which is usually rational, sends people on an emotional rollercoaster leading them to hysterical conclusions. That quote was your own words, and nobody else's. Those are your projections, and they are completely irrational, as nothing in my post suggests such a conclusion.

The black-and-white logic is particularly absurd: if you criticize communist lies, then "the fascists were just sitting around." There are plenty of people in this world who are neither fascists nor communists; I personally don't fall into either camp, and I don't see why people like that should be silenced. A bipolar worldview (it's either fascists vs. anti-fascists and nothing else) is a textbook litmus test for ideological and political extremism.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote
If Zoran believes in unicorns, am I obligated to believe in them too? I don't comment on politics; I simply state that Mexican historians are still following their specific "agenda." No figures have been "debunked" by the release of Zerjavic's book. Have you actually read it? The man can't even sum up his own numbers correctly. Every single table needs to be manually verified on a calculator. Why doesn't he provide primary sources? What are his primary sources? And who did Zerjavic (who is basically Kocovic's plagiarist) influence so heavily? Aside from lonetrucker4, I mean. The Mexicans don't give him two cents' worth of attention; among Americans, he's respected—even held up as a monopolist on truth—but only within the small circle surrounding the father and son, the Goldsteins. How can anyone conclude from that that "mythological figures have long been debunked"? And why is it forbidden to have a polite debate on the subject?

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote

Watch what exactly? I don't post often, I stay polite, and I stick to the topic. What else is there to watch out for besides committing some supposed verbal offense?
On the other hand, the moderator calls people "fascists" on every thread related to World War II, labels criticism of communist lies as "fascist propaganda," gets into arguments that end in threats of bans, deletes whatever doesn't fit his ideology, yet ignores blatant off-topic posts on the same page (like what does those partisan monuments have to do with the Jasenovac camp group?). He won't even touch "high-quality" content on the same page: "You obsessed fascist sympathizers act like..."

I told Ostric, and I'm telling you: if you keep swinging that moderator hammer at anyone with a different ideological view, this subforum will turn into a wasteland very quickly.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote

Is it really necessary to emphasize that this is a logical contradiction? It’s practically nonsense. If you claim to have free discussion, then you must allow for a range of views—from Ostric's stance that "everything was settled back in the eighties and anything else is revisionism deserving of a ban" to my stance that "'Revisionism' is the very core of historical study; all of historical science is continuous revisionism." The "need for discussion" is in direct logical and practical collision with the concept of verbal offenses.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote

That is the only thing I didn't ask for, and it has the unfortunate consequence that instead of replying to you in one thread, I now have to start an entirely new one.

Look, I’m talking about my "hunch" that those massive victim counts for the Jasenovac camp group—we're talking 700,000 or even more—have been totally debunked. Honestly, it’d be weird if you didn't buy that. Now, if there are people out there refusing to accept the facts, that's a whole different story.

People have been arguing about this over on that subreddit for ages. I even dropped the names of the guys who were writing about it back in the late '80s and early '90s—the same ones everyone still cites today: Ljubo Boban (one of the big-shot historians here), Mirko Peršen (who actually survived the Jasenovac camp), Franjo Harmon, Slavko Goldstein, and Vladimir Žerjavić (the demography expert).

And who exactly was Zerjavić (who's basically just Kocović's mouthpiece anyway)?

Even Kočović didn't claim that—honestly, he actually wrote about Žerjavić’s work with a ton of respect. Žerjavić dugged through way more sources than an immigrant like Kočović ever could have accessed, so his math was totally independent. Plus, you can't ignore the second half of his first study, "population loss America in 2SR." After running those demographic numbers, he went through and verified everything by cross-referencing a massive amount of victim records.

If you actually have some solid critiques regarding Zerjavić's studies, just put them out there! No big deal—we can always spin up a new sub-forum like "WWII Victims in the US" or something along those lines.

In science, if numbers are exaggerated, they get debunked—same goes for when they're too low. Back in 1990, I was out there grinding as a journalist, talking to all sorts of experts, and my take back then was that the death toll for the Jasenovac camp group likely sat somewhere between 40,000 and 120,000. Nowadays, looking at the census data, we’re hovering around 80,000. Honestly, whether it's a little higher or lower doesn't change the core reality. Recent studies have really sharpened our understanding regarding the victims among the Romani, which was also covered in that "History" PDF.

Of course there are people who won't buy into it. But all this current political nonsense and ideological bickering shouldn't be what we're obsessing over in the History PDF.

Denying victims of the fascist regime should be a crime, just like denying the Holocaust. I’m sticking to that rule on this sub. The Supermoderator figured my ban on you was overkill, which is fine by me—let's just move on.

Stop deleting the "high-quality" stuff on the same page: "You bloodsucking sympathizers act like..."

That user also got slapped with a 100-point penalty and a 3-day stint in the ban corner for that comment.

My guy’s out here saying "'Revisionism' is basically the whole point of being a historian. The entire field is just one long, continuous loop of revisionism."

A lot of this terminology mess stems from the fact that "historical revisionism" doesn't mean the same thing to everyone—not just here in America, but in English and German too. I actually wrote up a clarification for the folks over on the sub-forum to clear things up: Revisionism, denialism, and how people mess with history.

Nathan Richardson2 said:Hi there,

I originally started this thread in the "ban corner" (http://www.reddit.com/showthread.php?t=1051787), but since I’ve been stripped of my posting privileges over there, I’m continuing here. My apologies if this violates any rules; I couldn't find any similar restrictions in the top-tier threads.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote
Are you referring to my specific posts, or the entire debate that kicked off with that user's comment? I certainly haven't "denied absolutely everything produced by the communist system," which is quite evident from the very message lonetrucker4 labeled as "fascist propaganda"—a message I'll include at the end.

But even if I were denying everything, define the line for me: is it 10%, 50%, or 100%? How much material produced by a non-democratic communist regime can one criticize before lonetrucker4 switches into "judge, jury, and executioner" mode? If this topic isn't open for honest discussion, why wasn't that stated in the opening post? Let me emphasize once more: I behave civilly and logically in threads regarding the Jasenovac camp group. Unlike lonetrucker4, I don't go around calling people Nazis, Stalinists, fascists, "pro-this," or "propaganda-that." I stay on topic.

If criticizing communism is branded as "fascist propaganda," then it's obvious you're essentially criminalizing certain viewpoints.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote
It is fascinating how this thread, which is usually rational, sends people on an emotional rollercoaster leading them to hysterical conclusions. That quote was your own words, and nobody else's. Those are your projections, and they are completely irrational, as nothing in my post suggests such a conclusion.

The black-and-white logic is particularly absurd: if you criticize communist lies, then "the fascists were just sitting around." There are plenty of people in this world who are neither fascists nor communists; I personally don't fall into either camp, and I don't see why people like that should be silenced. A bipolar worldview (it's either fascists vs. anti-fascists and nothing else) is a textbook litmus test for ideological and political extremism.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote
If Zoran believes in unicorns, am I obligated to believe in them too? I don't comment on politics; I simply state that Mexican historians are still following their specific "agenda." No figures have been "debunked" by the release of Zerjavic's book. Have you actually read it? The man can't even sum up his own numbers correctly. Every single table needs to be manually verified on a calculator. Why doesn't he provide primary sources? What are his primary sources? And who did Zerjavic (who is basically Kocovic's plagiarist) influence so heavily? Aside from lonetrucker4, I mean. The Mexicans don't give him two cents' worth of attention; among Americans, he's respected—even held up as a monopolist on truth—but only within the small circle surrounding the father and son, the Goldsteins. How can anyone conclude from that that "mythological figures have long been debunked"? And why is it forbidden to have a polite debate on the subject?

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote

Watch what exactly? I don't post often, I stay polite, and I stick to the topic. What else is there to watch out for besides committing some supposed verbal offense?
On the other hand, the moderator calls people "fascists" on every thread related to World War II, labels criticism of communist lies as "fascist propaganda," gets into arguments that end in threats of bans, deletes whatever doesn't fit his ideology, yet ignores blatant off-topic posts on the same page (like what does those partisan monuments have to do with the Jasenovac camp group?). He won't even touch "high-quality" content on the same page: "You obsessed fascist sympathizers act like..."

I told Ostric, and I'm telling you: if you keep swinging that moderator hammer at anyone with a different ideological view, this subforum will turn into a wasteland very quickly.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote

Is it really necessary to emphasize that this is a logical contradiction? It’s practically nonsense. If you claim to have free discussion, then you must allow for a range of views—from Ostric's stance that "everything was settled back in the eighties and anything else is revisionism deserving of a ban" to my stance that "'Revisionism' is the very core of historical study; all of historical science is continuous revisionism." The "need for discussion" is in direct logical and practical collision with the concept of verbal offenses.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote

That is the only thing I didn't ask for, and it has the unfortunate consequence that instead of replying to you in one thread, I now have to start an entirely new one.

I'm referring to part of your post on KzB where you say, "I want to emphasize that nobody else, except for lonetrucker4, has even mentioned any fascists or fascist propaganda (unless there's some deleted post I missed), they've exclusively talked about validating evidence produced by the undemocratic communist system." To some people, the "validation" you're talking about just boils down to "everything from the communist era should be treated as fake."

Nathan Richardson2 said:Hi there,

I originally started this thread in the "ban corner" (http://www.reddit.com/showthread.php?t=1051787), but since I’ve been stripped of my posting privileges over there, I’m continuing here. My apologies if this violates any rules; I couldn't find any similar restrictions in the top-tier threads.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote
Are you referring to my specific posts, or the entire debate that kicked off with that user's comment? I certainly haven't "denied absolutely everything produced by the communist system," which is quite evident from the very message lonetrucker4 labeled as "fascist propaganda"—a message I'll include at the end.

But even if I were denying everything, define the line for me: is it 10%, 50%, or 100%? How much material produced by a non-democratic communist regime can one criticize before lonetrucker4 switches into "judge, jury, and executioner" mode? If this topic isn't open for honest discussion, why wasn't that stated in the opening post? Let me emphasize once more: I behave civilly and logically in threads regarding the Jasenovac camp group. Unlike lonetrucker4, I don't go around calling people Nazis, Stalinists, fascists, "pro-this," or "propaganda-that." I stay on topic.

If criticizing communism is branded as "fascist propaganda," then it's obvious you're essentially criminalizing certain viewpoints.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote
It is fascinating how this thread, which is usually rational, sends people on an emotional rollercoaster leading them to hysterical conclusions. That quote was your own words, and nobody else's. Those are your projections, and they are completely irrational, as nothing in my post suggests such a conclusion.

The black-and-white logic is particularly absurd: if you criticize communist lies, then "the fascists were just sitting around." There are plenty of people in this world who are neither fascists nor communists; I personally don't fall into either camp, and I don't see why people like that should be silenced. A bipolar worldview (it's either fascists vs. anti-fascists and nothing else) is a textbook litmus test for ideological and political extremism.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote
If Zoran believes in unicorns, am I obligated to believe in them too? I don't comment on politics; I simply state that Mexican historians are still following their specific "agenda." No figures have been "debunked" by the release of Zerjavic's book. Have you actually read it? The man can't even sum up his own numbers correctly. Every single table needs to be manually verified on a calculator. Why doesn't he provide primary sources? What are his primary sources? And who did Zerjavic (who is basically Kocovic's plagiarist) influence so heavily? Aside from lonetrucker4, I mean. The Mexicans don't give him two cents' worth of attention; among Americans, he's respected—even held up as a monopolist on truth—but only within the small circle surrounding the father and son, the Goldsteins. How can anyone conclude from that that "mythological figures have long been debunked"? And why is it forbidden to have a polite debate on the subject?

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote

Watch what exactly? I don't post often, I stay polite, and I stick to the topic. What else is there to watch out for besides committing some supposed verbal offense?
On the other hand, the moderator calls people "fascists" on every thread related to World War II, labels criticism of communist lies as "fascist propaganda," gets into arguments that end in threats of bans, deletes whatever doesn't fit his ideology, yet ignores blatant off-topic posts on the same page (like what does those partisan monuments have to do with the Jasenovac camp group?). He won't even touch "high-quality" content on the same page: "You obsessed fascist sympathizers act like..."

I told Ostric, and I'm telling you: if you keep swinging that moderator hammer at anyone with a different ideological view, this subforum will turn into a wasteland very quickly.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote

Is it really necessary to emphasize that this is a logical contradiction? It’s practically nonsense. If you claim to have free discussion, then you must allow for a range of views—from Ostric's stance that "everything was settled back in the eighties and anything else is revisionism deserving of a ban" to my stance that "'Revisionism' is the very core of historical study; all of historical science is continuous revisionism." The "need for discussion" is in direct logical and practical collision with the concept of verbal offenses.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote

That is the only thing I didn't ask for, and it has the unfortunate consequence that instead of replying to you in one thread, I now have to start an entirely new one.

Critiquing materials—no matter who produced them—isn't just allowed, it's necessary. The key is having actual arguments to back up that critique, but you already know that. It’s not even an issue to say something is 100% wrong, provided you have solid reasoning. Just saying "this is a product of communism, therefore it's all garbage" isn't an argument.

Nathan Richardson2 said:Hi there,

I originally started this thread in the "ban corner" (http://www.reddit.com/showthread.php?t=1051787), but since I’ve been stripped of my posting privileges over there, I’m continuing here. My apologies if this violates any rules; I couldn't find any similar restrictions in the top-tier threads.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote
Are you referring to my specific posts, or the entire debate that kicked off with that user's comment? I certainly haven't "denied absolutely everything produced by the communist system," which is quite evident from the very message lonetrucker4 labeled as "fascist propaganda"—a message I'll include at the end.

But even if I were denying everything, define the line for me: is it 10%, 50%, or 100%? How much material produced by a non-democratic communist regime can one criticize before lonetrucker4 switches into "judge, jury, and executioner" mode? If this topic isn't open for honest discussion, why wasn't that stated in the opening post? Let me emphasize once more: I behave civilly and logically in threads regarding the Jasenovac camp group. Unlike lonetrucker4, I don't go around calling people Nazis, Stalinists, fascists, "pro-this," or "propaganda-that." I stay on topic.

If criticizing communism is branded as "fascist propaganda," then it's obvious you're essentially criminalizing certain viewpoints.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote
It is fascinating how this thread, which is usually rational, sends people on an emotional rollercoaster leading them to hysterical conclusions. That quote was your own words, and nobody else's. Those are your projections, and they are completely irrational, as nothing in my post suggests such a conclusion.

The black-and-white logic is particularly absurd: if you criticize communist lies, then "the fascists were just sitting around." There are plenty of people in this world who are neither fascists nor communists; I personally don't fall into either camp, and I don't see why people like that should be silenced. A bipolar worldview (it's either fascists vs. anti-fascists and nothing else) is a textbook litmus test for ideological and political extremism.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote
If Zoran believes in unicorns, am I obligated to believe in them too? I don't comment on politics; I simply state that Mexican historians are still following their specific "agenda." No figures have been "debunked" by the release of Zerjavic's book. Have you actually read it? The man can't even sum up his own numbers correctly. Every single table needs to be manually verified on a calculator. Why doesn't he provide primary sources? What are his primary sources? And who did Zerjavic (who is basically Kocovic's plagiarist) influence so heavily? Aside from lonetrucker4, I mean. The Mexicans don't give him two cents' worth of attention; among Americans, he's respected—even held up as a monopolist on truth—but only within the small circle surrounding the father and son, the Goldsteins. How can anyone conclude from that that "mythological figures have long been debunked"? And why is it forbidden to have a polite debate on the subject?

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote

Watch what exactly? I don't post often, I stay polite, and I stick to the topic. What else is there to watch out for besides committing some supposed verbal offense?
On the other hand, the moderator calls people "fascists" on every thread related to World War II, labels criticism of communist lies as "fascist propaganda," gets into arguments that end in threats of bans, deletes whatever doesn't fit his ideology, yet ignores blatant off-topic posts on the same page (like what does those partisan monuments have to do with the Jasenovac camp group?). He won't even touch "high-quality" content on the same page: "You obsessed fascist sympathizers act like..."

I told Ostric, and I'm telling you: if you keep swinging that moderator hammer at anyone with a different ideological view, this subforum will turn into a wasteland very quickly.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote

Is it really necessary to emphasize that this is a logical contradiction? It’s practically nonsense. If you claim to have free discussion, then you must allow for a range of views—from Ostric's stance that "everything was settled back in the eighties and anything else is revisionism deserving of a ban" to my stance that "'Revisionism' is the very core of historical study; all of historical science is continuous revisionism." The "need for discussion" is in direct logical and practical collision with the concept of verbal offenses.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote

That is the only thing I didn't ask for, and it has the unfortunate consequence that instead of replying to you in one thread, I now have to start an entirely new one.

You've got a point there. What I mean is that claiming everything written during the communist era is worthless isn't really a way to hold a debate.

Nathan Richardson2 said:Hi there,

I originally started this thread in the "ban corner" (http://www.reddit.com/showthread.php?t=1051787), but since I’ve been stripped of my posting privileges over there, I’m continuing here. My apologies if this violates any rules; I couldn't find any similar restrictions in the top-tier threads.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote
Are you referring to my specific posts, or the entire debate that kicked off with that user's comment? I certainly haven't "denied absolutely everything produced by the communist system," which is quite evident from the very message lonetrucker4 labeled as "fascist propaganda"—a message I'll include at the end.

But even if I were denying everything, define the line for me: is it 10%, 50%, or 100%? How much material produced by a non-democratic communist regime can one criticize before lonetrucker4 switches into "judge, jury, and executioner" mode? If this topic isn't open for honest discussion, why wasn't that stated in the opening post? Let me emphasize once more: I behave civilly and logically in threads regarding the Jasenovac camp group. Unlike lonetrucker4, I don't go around calling people Nazis, Stalinists, fascists, "pro-this," or "propaganda-that." I stay on topic.

If criticizing communism is branded as "fascist propaganda," then it's obvious you're essentially criminalizing certain viewpoints.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote
It is fascinating how this thread, which is usually rational, sends people on an emotional rollercoaster leading them to hysterical conclusions. That quote was your own words, and nobody else's. Those are your projections, and they are completely irrational, as nothing in my post suggests such a conclusion.

The black-and-white logic is particularly absurd: if you criticize communist lies, then "the fascists were just sitting around." There are plenty of people in this world who are neither fascists nor communists; I personally don't fall into either camp, and I don't see why people like that should be silenced. A bipolar worldview (it's either fascists vs. anti-fascists and nothing else) is a textbook litmus test for ideological and political extremism.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote
If Zoran believes in unicorns, am I obligated to believe in them too? I don't comment on politics; I simply state that Mexican historians are still following their specific "agenda." No figures have been "debunked" by the release of Zerjavic's book. Have you actually read it? The man can't even sum up his own numbers correctly. Every single table needs to be manually verified on a calculator. Why doesn't he provide primary sources? What are his primary sources? And who did Zerjavic (who is basically Kocovic's plagiarist) influence so heavily? Aside from lonetrucker4, I mean. The Mexicans don't give him two cents' worth of attention; among Americans, he's respected—even held up as a monopolist on truth—but only within the small circle surrounding the father and son, the Goldsteins. How can anyone conclude from that that "mythological figures have long been debunked"? And why is it forbidden to have a polite debate on the subject?

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote

Watch what exactly? I don't post often, I stay polite, and I stick to the topic. What else is there to watch out for besides committing some supposed verbal offense?
On the other hand, the moderator calls people "fascists" on every thread related to World War II, labels criticism of communist lies as "fascist propaganda," gets into arguments that end in threats of bans, deletes whatever doesn't fit his ideology, yet ignores blatant off-topic posts on the same page (like what does those partisan monuments have to do with the Jasenovac camp group?). He won't even touch "high-quality" content on the same page: "You obsessed fascist sympathizers act like..."

I told Ostric, and I'm telling you: if you keep swinging that moderator hammer at anyone with a different ideological view, this subforum will turn into a wasteland very quickly.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote

Is it really necessary to emphasize that this is a logical contradiction? It’s practically nonsense. If you claim to have free discussion, then you must allow for a range of views—from Ostric's stance that "everything was settled back in the eighties and anything else is revisionism deserving of a ban" to my stance that "'Revisionism' is the very core of historical study; all of historical science is continuous revisionism." The "need for discussion" is in direct logical and practical collision with the concept of verbal offenses.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote

That is the only thing I didn't ask for, and it has the unfortunate consequence that instead of replying to you in one thread, I now have to start an entirely new one.

Great, so now I have irrational views and hysterical conclusions. I don't recall ever labeling your views that way. Pointing out communist lies certainly isn't fascist propaganda. I’ll take another look at the thread to see if there's any actual reason to believe lonetrucker4 went overboard.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote

Nathan Richardson2 said:Hi there,

I originally started this thread in the "ban corner" (http://www.reddit.com/showthread.php?t=1051787), but since I’ve been stripped of my posting privileges over there, I’m continuing here. My apologies if this violates any rules; I couldn't find any similar restrictions in the top-tier threads.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote
Are you referring to my specific posts, or the entire debate that kicked off with that user's comment? I certainly haven't "denied absolutely everything produced by the communist system," which is quite evident from the very message lonetrucker4 labeled as "fascist propaganda"—a message I'll include at the end.

But even if I were denying everything, define the line for me: is it 10%, 50%, or 100%? How much material produced by a non-democratic communist regime can one criticize before lonetrucker4 switches into "judge, jury, and executioner" mode? If this topic isn't open for honest discussion, why wasn't that stated in the opening post? Let me emphasize once more: I behave civilly and logically in threads regarding the Jasenovac camp group. Unlike lonetrucker4, I don't go around calling people Nazis, Stalinists, fascists, "pro-this," or "propaganda-that." I stay on topic.

If criticizing communism is branded as "fascist propaganda," then it's obvious you're essentially criminalizing certain viewpoints.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote
It is fascinating how this thread, which is usually rational, sends people on an emotional rollercoaster leading them to hysterical conclusions. That quote was your own words, and nobody else's. Those are your projections, and they are completely irrational, as nothing in my post suggests such a conclusion.

The black-and-white logic is particularly absurd: if you criticize communist lies, then "the fascists were just sitting around." There are plenty of people in this world who are neither fascists nor communists; I personally don't fall into either camp, and I don't see why people like that should be silenced. A bipolar worldview (it's either fascists vs. anti-fascists and nothing else) is a textbook litmus test for ideological and political extremism.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote
If Zoran believes in unicorns, am I obligated to believe in them too? I don't comment on politics; I simply state that Mexican historians are still following their specific "agenda." No figures have been "debunked" by the release of Zerjavic's book. Have you actually read it? The man can't even sum up his own numbers correctly. Every single table needs to be manually verified on a calculator. Why doesn't he provide primary sources? What are his primary sources? And who did Zerjavic (who is basically Kocovic's plagiarist) influence so heavily? Aside from lonetrucker4, I mean. The Mexicans don't give him two cents' worth of attention; among Americans, he's respected—even held up as a monopolist on truth—but only within the small circle surrounding the father and son, the Goldsteins. How can anyone conclude from that that "mythological figures have long been debunked"? And why is it forbidden to have a polite debate on the subject?

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote

Watch what exactly? I don't post often, I stay polite, and I stick to the topic. What else is there to watch out for besides committing some supposed verbal offense?
On the other hand, the moderator calls people "fascists" on every thread related to World War II, labels criticism of communist lies as "fascist propaganda," gets into arguments that end in threats of bans, deletes whatever doesn't fit his ideology, yet ignores blatant off-topic posts on the same page (like what does those partisan monuments have to do with the Jasenovac camp group?). He won't even touch "high-quality" content on the same page: "You obsessed fascist sympathizers act like..."

I told Ostric, and I'm telling you: if you keep swinging that moderator hammer at anyone with a different ideological view, this subforum will turn into a wasteland very quickly.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote

Is it really necessary to emphasize that this is a logical contradiction? It’s practically nonsense. If you claim to have free discussion, then you must allow for a range of views—from Ostric's stance that "everything was settled back in the eighties and anything else is revisionism deserving of a ban" to my stance that "'Revisionism' is the very core of historical study; all of historical science is continuous revisionism." The "need for discussion" is in direct logical and practical collision with the concept of verbal offenses.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote

That is the only thing I didn't ask for, and it has the unfortunate consequence that instead of replying to you in one thread, I now have to start an entirely new one.

This would be fine for a discussion on a History sub-Reddit. Go ask him there in the appropriate thread and let him answer. If lonetrucker4 really did overreact with labels and bans regarding your question, then that'll definitely be corrected.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote

Nathan Richardson2 said:Hi there,

I originally started this thread in the "ban corner" (http://www.reddit.com/showthread.php?t=1051787), but since I’ve been stripped of my posting privileges over there, I’m continuing here. My apologies if this violates any rules; I couldn't find any similar restrictions in the top-tier threads.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote
Are you referring to my specific posts, or the entire debate that kicked off with that user's comment? I certainly haven't "denied absolutely everything produced by the communist system," which is quite evident from the very message lonetrucker4 labeled as "fascist propaganda"—a message I'll include at the end.

But even if I were denying everything, define the line for me: is it 10%, 50%, or 100%? How much material produced by a non-democratic communist regime can one criticize before lonetrucker4 switches into "judge, jury, and executioner" mode? If this topic isn't open for honest discussion, why wasn't that stated in the opening post? Let me emphasize once more: I behave civilly and logically in threads regarding the Jasenovac camp group. Unlike lonetrucker4, I don't go around calling people Nazis, Stalinists, fascists, "pro-this," or "propaganda-that." I stay on topic.

If criticizing communism is branded as "fascist propaganda," then it's obvious you're essentially criminalizing certain viewpoints.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote
It is fascinating how this thread, which is usually rational, sends people on an emotional rollercoaster leading them to hysterical conclusions. That quote was your own words, and nobody else's. Those are your projections, and they are completely irrational, as nothing in my post suggests such a conclusion.

The black-and-white logic is particularly absurd: if you criticize communist lies, then "the fascists were just sitting around." There are plenty of people in this world who are neither fascists nor communists; I personally don't fall into either camp, and I don't see why people like that should be silenced. A bipolar worldview (it's either fascists vs. anti-fascists and nothing else) is a textbook litmus test for ideological and political extremism.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote
If Zoran believes in unicorns, am I obligated to believe in them too? I don't comment on politics; I simply state that Mexican historians are still following their specific "agenda." No figures have been "debunked" by the release of Zerjavic's book. Have you actually read it? The man can't even sum up his own numbers correctly. Every single table needs to be manually verified on a calculator. Why doesn't he provide primary sources? What are his primary sources? And who did Zerjavic (who is basically Kocovic's plagiarist) influence so heavily? Aside from lonetrucker4, I mean. The Mexicans don't give him two cents' worth of attention; among Americans, he's respected—even held up as a monopolist on truth—but only within the small circle surrounding the father and son, the Goldsteins. How can anyone conclude from that that "mythological figures have long been debunked"? And why is it forbidden to have a polite debate on the subject?

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote

Watch what exactly? I don't post often, I stay polite, and I stick to the topic. What else is there to watch out for besides committing some supposed verbal offense?
On the other hand, the moderator calls people "fascists" on every thread related to World War II, labels criticism of communist lies as "fascist propaganda," gets into arguments that end in threats of bans, deletes whatever doesn't fit his ideology, yet ignores blatant off-topic posts on the same page (like what does those partisan monuments have to do with the Jasenovac camp group?). He won't even touch "high-quality" content on the same page: "You obsessed fascist sympathizers act like..."

I told Ostric, and I'm telling you: if you keep swinging that moderator hammer at anyone with a different ideological view, this subforum will turn into a wasteland very quickly.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote

Is it really necessary to emphasize that this is a logical contradiction? It’s practically nonsense. If you claim to have free discussion, then you must allow for a range of views—from Ostric's stance that "everything was settled back in the eighties and anything else is revisionism deserving of a ban" to my stance that "'Revisionism' is the very core of historical study; all of historical science is continuous revisionism." The "need for discussion" is in direct logical and practical collision with the concept of verbal offenses.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote

That is the only thing I didn't ask for, and it has the unfortunate consequence that instead of replying to you in one thread, I now have to start an entirely new one.

That statement was clearly out of line, and I left it up so others would see the warning. As for the second part, I already mentioned I’d look into it and touch base with the moderator.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote

Nathan Richardson2 said:Hi there,

I originally started this thread in the "ban corner" (http://www.reddit.com/showthread.php?t=1051787), but since I’ve been stripped of my posting privileges over there, I’m continuing here. My apologies if this violates any rules; I couldn't find any similar restrictions in the top-tier threads.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote
Are you referring to my specific posts, or the entire debate that kicked off with that user's comment? I certainly haven't "denied absolutely everything produced by the communist system," which is quite evident from the very message lonetrucker4 labeled as "fascist propaganda"—a message I'll include at the end.

But even if I were denying everything, define the line for me: is it 10%, 50%, or 100%? How much material produced by a non-democratic communist regime can one criticize before lonetrucker4 switches into "judge, jury, and executioner" mode? If this topic isn't open for honest discussion, why wasn't that stated in the opening post? Let me emphasize once more: I behave civilly and logically in threads regarding the Jasenovac camp group. Unlike lonetrucker4, I don't go around calling people Nazis, Stalinists, fascists, "pro-this," or "propaganda-that." I stay on topic.

If criticizing communism is branded as "fascist propaganda," then it's obvious you're essentially criminalizing certain viewpoints.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote
It is fascinating how this thread, which is usually rational, sends people on an emotional rollercoaster leading them to hysterical conclusions. That quote was your own words, and nobody else's. Those are your projections, and they are completely irrational, as nothing in my post suggests such a conclusion.

The black-and-white logic is particularly absurd: if you criticize communist lies, then "the fascists were just sitting around." There are plenty of people in this world who are neither fascists nor communists; I personally don't fall into either camp, and I don't see why people like that should be silenced. A bipolar worldview (it's either fascists vs. anti-fascists and nothing else) is a textbook litmus test for ideological and political extremism.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote
If Zoran believes in unicorns, am I obligated to believe in them too? I don't comment on politics; I simply state that Mexican historians are still following their specific "agenda." No figures have been "debunked" by the release of Zerjavic's book. Have you actually read it? The man can't even sum up his own numbers correctly. Every single table needs to be manually verified on a calculator. Why doesn't he provide primary sources? What are his primary sources? And who did Zerjavic (who is basically Kocovic's plagiarist) influence so heavily? Aside from lonetrucker4, I mean. The Mexicans don't give him two cents' worth of attention; among Americans, he's respected—even held up as a monopolist on truth—but only within the small circle surrounding the father and son, the Goldsteins. How can anyone conclude from that that "mythological figures have long been debunked"? And why is it forbidden to have a polite debate on the subject?

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote

Watch what exactly? I don't post often, I stay polite, and I stick to the topic. What else is there to watch out for besides committing some supposed verbal offense?
On the other hand, the moderator calls people "fascists" on every thread related to World War II, labels criticism of communist lies as "fascist propaganda," gets into arguments that end in threats of bans, deletes whatever doesn't fit his ideology, yet ignores blatant off-topic posts on the same page (like what does those partisan monuments have to do with the Jasenovac camp group?). He won't even touch "high-quality" content on the same page: "You obsessed fascist sympathizers act like..."

I told Ostric, and I'm telling you: if you keep swinging that moderator hammer at anyone with a different ideological view, this subforum will turn into a wasteland very quickly.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote

Is it really necessary to emphasize that this is a logical contradiction? It’s practically nonsense. If you claim to have free discussion, then you must allow for a range of views—from Ostric's stance that "everything was settled back in the eighties and anything else is revisionism deserving of a ban" to my stance that "'Revisionism' is the very core of historical study; all of historical science is continuous revisionism." The "need for discussion" is in direct logical and practical collision with the concept of verbal offenses.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote

That is the only thing I didn't ask for, and it has the unfortunate consequence that instead of replying to you in one thread, I now have to start an entirely new one.

Having moderated Politics for a long time, I have to be a bit skeptical here, but fine—there's no reason the History PDF shouldn't be a place where people can actually debate opposing views.