Banned?

I would really appreciate it if the administration could take a look at my last two warnings, just because of the timing and how they were handed out; I’m wondering if this is actually legitimate rule-breaking or if maybe a moderator is just venting some personal frustration on me.

This whole situation has honestly become a bit ridiculous.

It honestly feels a bit surreal to me that I’d get flagged for "trolling," only to have that same moderator take my post and spin it off into its own dedicated thread that’s already drifted all the way down to page four.

I mean, if they really had to make a change, I suppose it would probably make more sense to just categorize it as off-topic instead.

But hey, whatever, my ban actually expires in about 45 minutes anyway, so it’s really not a huge deal, though I guess it is somewhat a matter of principle.

I suspect I only ended up getting flagged because I happen to disagree with the moderator on a few other topics, so maybe they're just feeling a little vindictive.

Kenneth Cruz67 said:It’s hilarious that I get flagged for "trolling," and then the same mod takes that exact flagged post and turns it into its own separate thread sitting on page 4.

Weird situation, yeah. I thought about asking admin to nix the ban on that post. But nah, let it stay. I put an explanation in the header of that new thread, which is now the first thing you see in Auschwitz: 80,000 killed isn't a big deal? People are always ready to slaughter each other?

You made the point that why everyone gets so worked up over just 80,000 people dying in the Auschwitz camp group, since it's not some massive number compared to deaths in certain battles.

You even admitted it might sound a little sociopathic—IMHO, it sounds deadly sociopathic.

By that logic, why do we care so much about, say, a number five times smaller from the American Civil War? Or the massacre of roughly 2,000 people in the Katyn Forest, etc.?

People actually responded to you, and unlike your provocation (the trolling), the discussion that followed wasn't totally useless, so that's why I decided to split it out.

The second flag, for post #32 in the new thread, is for criticizing the mods. Though it could've been for trolling, since you're "annoyed" that Auschwitz is being used as "post currency" and that we aren't looking at the "big picture."

You've got similar trolling and rule-breaking in your other posts too; could've easily gotten another flag. Your "big picture" is basically that we're a broken species ready to kill each other—you go all metaphysical so you don't have to deal with the annoying details, which is exactly what we do here in the History studies subforum. Because, newsflash, most people aren't out there killing each other every day. That only happens under specific circumstances.

For instance, you wrote (post #23): "The first monkey to pick up a branch from the ground used it to whack another monkey." OK, sure, we can debate that theory, but definitely not in a thread about Auschwitz. And that theory is just pulled out of thin air—it violates the subforum rules. [Sure, you could cite literature on violence theory. But while we obviously don't know how it went down when the first monkey grabbed a branch, we do know monkeys still use branches today—usually not to murder each other. (Case in point:
Chimps use branch as ladder to escape San Diego Zoo enclosure. (Though, granted, genocides have been recorded in chimps too—but again, not as a regular thing.)]

Then there's post #7: "But the society founded by the partisans also faced its own Srebrenica. Stalingrad. Ahmić." That's clearly counterfactual, because those devastations and massacres happened after the society (or at least the political regime) founded by the partisans (which is referenced in the US Constitution) was already destroyed. It's the same logic as blaming the Weimar Republic for the Nazi pogrom against Jews and Romani.

Your whole approach to this topic is pure trolling—just cheap provocation for the sake of it. You didn't quite pull it off, though.