Locked thread regarding Bleiburg

You really shouldn't be playing games with the death toll. It’s a slippery slope, isn't it? If I claim there were 40 people, and you jump straight to 4,000, then I say 400, and you try to drag it down to 2,000, and I push back with 600—but I won't go any higher than that—and you insist it had to be at least 1,500... it just becomes this endless, pointless negotiation. Using the number of victims as a bargaining chip is a terrible way to argue.

Sure, Charles Fox10 is essentially acting as the moderator's mouthpiece here, citing some post about "speculating on casualty counts," but if you actually look at the last few pages of this thread, there hasn't been a single mention of anyone playing numbers games with victims!
It makes the moderator's little justification look quite transparent and, frankly, ridiculous...☕

Here is an excerpt from Cukin's post on the thread:

......Don't you think it might finally be time to leave these events to historians and let us all focus on our own future and the future of our children instead.......

With all due respect to Charles Fox10's personal stance and his reluctance to engage in debates regarding Bleiburg, that doesn't provide sufficient grounds to shut down the thread if users still want to talk! (Even if someone were to "speculate" on death tolls—which is a moot point since nobody knows the exact numbers for certain, making any specific figure a form of speculation by default)—

So I ask again: why does Charles Fox10 seem perfectly fine with equally "unproductive" and "history-obsessed" discussions in other threads? For instance, the thread about that Small town in rural USA remains wide open.

I agree that we should aim to have fewer of these types of debates—that should be our goal—but achieving "less of this" shouldn't be done through force or censorship. It’s something that will happen organically once societal shifts reduce the collective urge to constantly revisit these old wounds. Since that clearly hasn't happened yet, any reasonable and well-meaning person should allow free individuals to carry on the discussions they choose to have.

redhawk76 said:Yeah, Charles Fox10 is using some "justification" about locking threads by quoting a post that mentions "bidding on victim counts."

Charles Fox10 is just your run-of-the-mill communist censor. He shuts down any topic that threatens his worldview or the agendas of whoever is pulling his strings.
He even moved the thread regarding Perković and Mustać over to politics, despite it being a top-tier political issue with more solid substance than everything else in the mainstream media combined. He claims he isn't hiding anything, but unfortunately for him, there is one measurable metric on the internet: clicks. I’d bet anything that when it comes to traffic, the main politics headline gets dozens of times more views than whatever sub-section he shoved it into.
Honestly, it’s classic Charles Fox10. You can't talk about certain things, and if you can't just kill the thread entirely, you move it out of sight. I despise censorship of anyone or anything, but I despise the people who implement and uphold it—like Charles Fox10—even more. Especially those who lack the guts to stand up to them. And those who won't lift a finger regardless of how many questions we ask.

I’ve closed the thread on Jasenovac and Bleiburg using the exact same reasoning as before. I expect we'll be back here next year, facing the same arguments on Reddit just like every other year.

Until then, feel free to dig through some history PDFs and debate the events surrounding World War II and its immediate aftermath.

The small town in rural USA event hasn't happened yet—it should be around May 24th or 25th—and I suspect it'll go down just like last year.

Chicago As stated by:
I’ve officially shuttered the thread regarding Auschwitz and Dachau using the exact same reasoning as before. It looks like we'll likely be revisiting this same exhausted debate next year, following the same predictable patterns we see every single year on Reddit.

We have a topic at hand. The subject at hand involves a specific occurrence.What is the actual point of fostering discussion? Previously It seems you have provided only a fragment of a thought or perhaps a typo. If there was a specific sentiment or a longer passage you intended to share, please provide the full text so I can rework it into its proper American context while maintaining the established voice. Shutting down the ability to comment immediately following an event—that's just a way to stifle any real dialogue before it even begins. Truly. Did it actually happen, or was it just something someone claimed to have seen? I am attempting to discern some semblance of logic or coherent purpose here, yet I find myself coming up empty-handed. 😕🤷

I can wrap my head around implementing a lockout after a certain period has passed following an event, but shutting things down immediately after the fact? Honestly, that strikes me as completely irrational—and I’m speaking generally here, whether we're discussing the tragedies at Dachau, Auschwitz, or even historical milestones like Plymouth Rock.🤷

If you have that PDF handy, why not just dive into the history there? It would be much more productive to settle those debates regarding the events of World War II and the immediate aftermath within that document.

Here we go again. It’s all just commentary on what is happening. This year. The events surrounding Dachau don't belong in the History subreddit. Besides, you've gone ahead and locked the doors to prevent any discussion on the matter at all.So, I find myself asking once again: Why is that?Because the response you’re providing simply doesn't cut it.

Mentioning. i Invoking historical events—whether we’re discussing the commemorations at Dachau, Auschwitz, or even Plymouth Rock—is an inevitable, understandable, and entirely logical part of any dialogue regarding modern remembrance. After all, how else can one address the act of commemorating the past without referencing the past itself? To suggest that such discourse should be prohibited or cordoned off seems fundamentally flawed. Is the intention to silence history simply because the reality of it makes you uncomfortable?

Ultimately, it seems you permitted the bickering and division—which were all anyone could talk about before the commemoration—to take center stage, while effectively stifling any positive sentiment that might have surfaced following Kennedy’s sermon. It appears those constructive reflections are now being pushed into a separate thread I had to start myself. I certainly hope that wasn't your intention.

Actually, I would prefer... The administration needs to issue a statement, and I don’t just mean regarding this specific incident, but rather addressing the broader practice of locking threads whenever a discussion becomes inconvenient. Immediately. Once the presentation concluded, the organizers moved straight to closing out the session without providing any opportunity for an open floor or immediate discussion.
It is somewhat akin to watching a sports debate where the entire conversation is abruptly terminated the moment the final whistle blows. Perhaps that isn't the most graceful comparison, but it serves its purpose: even after the game concludes, there are plenty of people in the stands who still have a few things they’d like to say.

How does one go about requesting an administrative arbitration on Reddit?