2016 U.S. Presidential Elections: The Circus Is In Full Swing

Users who are viewing this thread

Terco_Viejo

Spanish Gifquisition
Grandmaster Knight
@Antoine de Saint-Exupéry Really shameful this attitude on your part. You should not be part of the moderation group. I have not exceeded the limits of the rules of this forum, what I have done is to go against your criteria and what you believe in a particular way. Blatant arbitrary censorship.
 

vota dc

Sergeant Knight at Arms
M&BWB
Off this particular topic but on the topic of the election, the Proud Boys have come to the realization that Trump had fed them lies all along and referred to him today as a "shill". :lol:
Maybe people like Enrique Tarrio were tired about being called "White Supremacist" by media while people like Ralph Northam being loved by black voters.
They should be in charge of BLM, after all antifa just burned black neighbourhood ruinining the reputation of BLM protest.
 

Terco_Viejo

Spanish Gifquisition
Grandmaster Knight
no, that is not correct.
Yes, it is an abuse of your position as moderator by arbitrary censorship. Why don't you do the same with quotes from Brutus then?

It is an arbitrary sifting of a historiographical question that happened more than 500 years ago which does not affect any sensibility of any modern society or state and of which you can opine for or against but not apply this blatant intellectual censorship to me.
 

Vermillion_Hawk

Butthurt Bushmaster
Grandmaster Knight
WF&SWBVC
@Antoine de Saint-Exupéry Really shameful this attitude on your part. You should not be part of the moderation group. I have not exceeded the limits of the rules of this forum, what I have done is to go against your criteria and what you believe in a particular way. Blatant arbitrary censorship.

I will agree that Monty is an arbitrary moderator but it's hardly new to this forum. If the powers that be want him in charge then I suppose that's the way of things.
 

Pixel

Archduke
Well, I also reported brutus, though it wasn't nearly as severe and his case got a bit more sympathetic, while terco digs his hole further and further. Unfortunately I don't think monty has the final word on issues of moderation.
 

Terco_Viejo

Spanish Gifquisition
Grandmaster Knight
It is incredible the level of demagogy, should I as a Spaniard of Celtiberian origins judge the expansionist campaigns of the Roman Empire in Hispania with the morals of the 21st century? For God's sake, what kind of circus is this?
 

MadVader

Duke
M&BWB
I'm practically an outsider, so I have the benefit of looking at the drama here with fresh, disinterested eyes. I was amazed at people ganging up on Brutus (not cool) and now at Terco being moderated (although he is being an ass). Things have changed, and not for the better. Except for Kurczak, of course - she is evil, but fair.
The Gungan genocide never happened. Change my mind.
But we can agree that even if it didn't happen, it should have happened.
 

Pixel

Archduke
It is incredible the level of demagogy, should I as a Spaniard of Celtiberian origins judge the expansionist campaigns of the Roman Empire in Hispania with the morals of the 21st century? For God's sake, what kind of circus is this?

You admit a roman conquest in fact happened and that there may be reason to have moral qualms with it having happened, big steps there.

Since you insist on not using perceived modern standards to judge the past, okay, whose ancient moral standard would you prefer us to apply? Obviously the romans must have thought their wars there justified no? ( In fact they supposedly debated how just they were to intervene in Sagunto, because as usual the past is complicated ) one imagines the Iberians thought rather poorly about being invaded. Why do you only apply moral relativism only in certain ways? You're almost there dude, next step.

If you want us to use roman morality, tell us why or why not. Also which Roman perspective.
If you would prefer us to use celtiberian morality, tell us why or why not.
Or is there another ancient society who is the arbiter of ethics for that time period? tell us who.

I'm practically an outsider, so I have the benefit of looking at the drama here with fresh, disinterested eyes. I was amazed at people ganging up on Brutus (not cool) and now at Terco being moderated (although he is being an ass). Things have changed, and not for the better. Except for Kurczak, of course - she is evil, but fair.
I'm not sure how any of this is different aside from maybe someone getting moderated for it for once and it being literally the only conversation in off-topic for like a week. Terco's post was deleted pretty quick - but yeah uh, it deserved it. He is literally insane.
 
Last edited:

Terco_Viejo

Spanish Gifquisition
Grandmaster Knight
The subject we were dealing with has passed to the background at the moment that the figure of the censor is imposed. At no time have I glorified or promoted genocidal conducts, which would be justly punishable. It was a question of data vs. data, of opinion vs. opinion which can be right or wrong but never censurable in such a flagrant and irrational way. That's what really pisses me off and that's why I ressulted an ass
 

Pixel

Archduke
I don't believe the questions I am asking would lead to answers which will lead to infraction, but well I've been surprised before.
 

MadVader

Duke
M&BWB
I'm not sure how any of this is different aside from maybe someone getting moderated for it for once and it being literally the only conversation in off-topic for like a week. Terco's post was deleted pretty quick - but yeah uh, it deserved it. He is literally insane.
I haven't seen his deleted post, so I can't judge that. He's just being a bit of butthurt nationalist here - normally in the on-topic boards he is a voice of moderation and non-insanity.
I don't think genocide denial is a good reason to be moderated (except for the Nazi and Armenian genocides which are special). For example, I believe that the Chinese are not committing a genocide against the Uyghurs and that those claiming this need to calm down and look at the definition and the facts. But if a moderator believes there is genocide, then he has grounds to slap me with a warning, which I would think is completely unfair.
 

Pixel

Archduke
Also for the record terco, you totally 100% glorified genocidal conduct in your deleted post (hinted at in some of those that remain), though it may be from a place of genuine malicious ignorance or something (since you seem blissfully unaware of genocide taking place)

I haven't seen his deleted post, so I can't judge that. He's just being a bit of butthurt nationalist here - normally in the on-topic boards he is a voice of moderation and non-insanity.
I don't think genocide denial is a good reason to be moderated (except for the Nazi and Armenian genocides which are special). For example, I believe that the Chinese are not committing a genocide against the Uyghurs and that those claiming this need to calm down and look at the definition and the facts. But if a moderator believes there is genocide, then he has grounds to slap me with a warning, which I would think is completely unfair.

Yeah I skimmed that stuff in the other thread. Regardless, I'm not sure why only those two genocides should be the special exceptions. Maybe that's not what you meant, but unlike the uighurs' the genocide(s) in the Americas isn't some current ongoing event (well not as of like the 90s anyway to my knowledge) we can look at through the lens of the glaringly flawed UN definition of genocide and debate semantics over. Calling something not a genocide by some narrow definition of genocide as a gotcha is somewhat distinct to just saying nothing untoward happened at all and in fact the Spanish were heroic and altruistic liberators or whatever. In fairness not terco's exact words but more or less the gist from this conversation and the one I had with him a couple years back.

If you said that about the Chinese in relation to the uighurs, maybe I'm totally wrong, but I would imagine someone might be inclined to do something as taleworlds' whole thing is not wanting their product to be associated with that stuff. I presume they also don't want it to be associated with Spanish nationalism/fascism, of which there definitely is an undercurrent of in the general movement of denying or downplaying the conquest of the Americas.

They of course seem to have a fairly pragmatic attitude about it though, seeing as they are reluctant to alienate the Turkish base by just outright banning Armenian genocide denial altogether.
 
I haven't seen his deleted post, so I can't judge that. He's just being a bit of butthurt nationalist here - normally in the on-topic boards he is a voice of moderation and non-insanity.
I don't think genocide denial is a good reason to be moderated (except for the Nazi and Armenian genocides which are special). For example, I believe that the Chinese are not committing a genocide against the Uyghurs and that those claiming this need to calm down and look at the definition and the facts. But if a moderator believes there is genocide, then he has grounds to slap me with a warning, which I would think is completely unfair.


Genocide is one of many words which are basically useless in a discussion because everyone has a slightly varied definition (especially if they're a nationalist) and it's basically a slur at this point, but a far less ambiguous question would be "is the Chinese government actively trying to get rid of Uyghurs and/or destroy their way of life". You'd be very hard pressed to find anyone who disagrees.
 

Orion

Still Not Worthy
Global Moderator
M&BWBWF&SNW
The Spanish were perpetrators of several acts which fit both narrow, literal definitions of genocide (deliberate spreading of diseases among native populations) and broader, more nebulous definitions (construction of religious schools for conversion of "primitive" natives). Just because they were Catholic doesn't mean their actions were moral, as religious convictions or doctrines are not inherently moral. Not to beat a dead horse, but the Crusades come to mind. Rather than facing an organized military foe in their quest to conquer some sand, Catholic explorers and colonists encountered rooted native civilizations who were technologically inferior and vulnerable to disease. The intents were similar: bring the "light of God" to these heathens, by force if need be, and train them to behave like proper Christians, while also taking the lands they have settled because--as godless people--they don't deserve it. This could only be achieved by repression of their original culture & beliefs, with the intention of eradication & total replacement by Catholicism and European sensibilities. By all metrics it was a genocide.

That said, what discussion we do allow about the facts of genocides is restricted to scale and method. One can argue how often such instances occurred, how organized they were, and how "successful" they were, but to wholly deny that such acts took place is against our current policy on these types of discussions.

It goes without saying, but the moderation staff is reviewing reports of this incident between Monty & Terco. The discussion here is carrying on, but the report remains open.
 
Last edited:

eddiemccandless

Knight at Arms
WBNWVC
Come on folks this was a fun thread, you know, everything considered. Let's keep it friendly.

22te8q.gif
 

Nega-Brutus

Sergeant at Arms
MadVader is such a ghost of 2012. Using "hysterical" to discredit ideas, fence-sitting, zealously dictionary-abiding forum-goer.

Sry eddie

Post is salt.
 
Last edited:

MadVader

Duke
M&BWB
MadVader is such a ghost of 2012. Using "hysterical" to discredit ideas, fence-sitting, zealously dictionary-abiding forum-goer.

Sry eddie
I'm right and you know it. Words like genocide have meanings, so use them properly and try to be intellectually honest.
Fence-sitting for neither taking anti-Chinese propaganda as fact nor spewing Chinese propaganda? That's just a stupid comment, this is not a football game.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom