Your opinions on the "Alternative History and Future Speculation" section wanted

[Deleted member 2278]

.

However it's a problem when we have the political aspects reach to the strategic dimension.
And something like a domestic Italian nuclear missile and warhead effort is just that!
With the usual suspects interjecting that state X doesn't need nukes, and can always rely on another state and the subtext being state X isn't worth it even for their own government.
Obviously that will provoke, how can it not?
Obviously it needs countering and cannot be just let through without contest.

Oh I know it's fraught with fraughtness but posters genuinely interested would *I hope* try to stay on topic and not needlessly needle. As for provocateurs, for lack of a better term, if we get better at not responding to them and instead hit the report button, eventually they'll have no ground to stand on. Counter, yes but through the right channels. I have much improvement to make myself with that one!

 

[dannydale]

Interesting. Also raised ( in France) own deep south, not lgbt but bullied at school - a catholic one with that, so much for charity. Made me an atheist, talk about a counter-productive result !!!!

Different flavor of authoritarian that yielded the same 'cruelty is the point' result. The fact that it was counterproductive is perfectly in line with what authoritarians want: endless supplies of conflict to use as an excuse to oppress people and give them their highest possible goal of endless targets to shoot.

Probably doesn't help enduring any sort of arrogance or aggression in a peaceful and reasoned way.

Authoritarians and other trolls don't want peace, logic, and reason. They want to shoot, pay armed men who then shoot, or pass policy designed to end up with shooting.


The simple fact this thread is here and we're keeping the peace, logic, and reason flowing means the trolls have lost.

 

[steelpillow]

. People do not ignore posts, they get stung and they defend themselves.

Best invention this forum came up with was a genuine ignore feature. You don't even know the person has posted. Just put the repeat offenders on your ignore list. Problem solved.

Yes there is an ignore feature, and I use it a fair bit. But my quote already addresses your point.

 

[sferrin]

. People do not ignore posts, they get stung and they defend themselves.

Best invention this forum came up with was a genuine ignore feature. You don't even know the person has posted. Just put the repeat offenders on your ignore list. Problem solved.

Yes there is an ignore feature, and I use it a fair bit. But my quote already addresses your point.

Was pointing out the difference between the old system and the current. Use to be that you'd still see they made a post and often curiosity could get the better of you. Now you don't even know there's a post to be curious about.

 

[Archibald]

I noted this, too. A pretty powerful tool to avoid tensions at times. Not pretty by any mean, for sure, but that's what it cost to get peace...

 

[H_K]

Reading through this thread, I'm given the impression this website could perhaps become pared down into essentially an image dump site with the occasional link, reference or stat. If that is the ultimate goal, then perhaps a wiki-type site would better achieve it. Users would PM the moderator team with content to be approved for posting. If there is to be be no or severely curtailed discussion, then why persist with the forum format at all? I really hope it doesn't come to that but ultimately this isn't my rodeo.

This times 1000.

There are other speculative forums out there (like Shipbucket/Planebucket) which can be amazing resources for images, but sadly they’re often deserted, which IMHO is 100% due to the lack of discussion. Basically, anyone can post a pretty image but after a while it gets old.

What makes this forum special is the level of discussion around projects from ALL angles, including technical, economic and historical/political angles.

 

[uk 75]

The majority of discussions in the various parts of this site- both Research and Speculative have teased out an unparalleled range of infomation and yes-opinions.
The moderators have helped this work.
As for the bad tempered exchanges that I have also been guilty of. I would refer you to the great Universities of the world where notable academics have continued lifelong feuds with much greater vitriol.

 

[zen]

Academia is notorious for it's feuding, biases, prejudices, egos and groupthinks.
Sometimes they make elected politicians look like nice professionals in comparison.

By contrast this forum is a paragon of virtue.

 

[Michel Van]

You notice that I and Archibald use very much the Alternate History section in this forum
I try to keep Politic out of it and promise to focus more on use of unused Projects in this section.

On Politic, it's a double-edged sword in this cases
And i known from alternatehistory.com how fast this get's out of control!
They adopted a zero tolerance for that and introduce a drastic kicked and banned policy.

Strangely Politic play important factor in development of Projects special the one we discuss here

 

[Archibald]

You notice that I and Archibald use very much the Alternate History section in this forum
I try to keep Politic out of it and promise to focus more on use of unused Projects in this section.

On Politic, it's a double-edged sword in this cases

And I known from alternatehistory.com how fast this get's out of control!
They adopted a zero tolerance for that and introduce a drastic kicked and banned policy.

Strangely Politic play important factor in development of Projects special the one we discuss here

I will not discuss my opinion about AH.com, if only to spare @steelpillow eyes and screen a lot of crass and rude words. Plus it isn't the thread topic.

Suffice to say that in their case, the policy mentionned by @Michel Van - while all too necessary those days - has been cranked to insane and obtuse levels, with a lack of transparency and democracy in the moderation team. It is a tragic example of a failing moderation team.

 

[Hood]

There are other speculative forums out there (like Shipbucket/Planebucket) which can be amazing resources for images, but sadly they’re often deserted, which IMHO is 100% due to the lack of discussion. Basically, anyone can post a pretty image but after a while it gets old.

Why it seems so sterile there is because Shipbucket has a Discord channel and 90% of interaction is now happening there among the newer users. This has created a tension with older users who see the original forum as the spiritual home with Discord as a communications channel. The newer members of course see Discord as home and generally most of them are not interested in the aims of Shipbucket but in pixel art on military topics more generally - certainly with a heavy emphasis on alternate universes (one Discord member said drawing real ships was boring because they actually existed). This has largely left the forum as an image posting centre for community approval before uploading to the archive.

I don't use Discord and keep well out of it, so I don't know how its policed but I can imagine its pretty wild given some of the antics that have seeped through (vote rigging etc.) to the forum. But on the plus side there have only been two bans in three years on the forum. I guess the problem of rude users and bad behaviour has simply moved over to Discord and reliant on whatever internal moderation (if any) they have.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

I created a Discord channel for Secret Projects but I wasn't sure of its purpose and it was abandoned.

Join the Secret Projects Forum Discord Server!

Check out the Secret Projects Forum community on Discord – hang out with 10 other members and enjoy free voice and text chat.

discord.gg

 

[Deleted member 2278]

This section is becoming a bit frustrating for me at the minute. Now, I'm all for alternate history, it can be a valuable analytical tool for real history and can be great fun too. I've dabbled in it quite a bit myself. However, with this being more of a technical site, I tend to wear a different hat here than I would say at althis, whatif or BtS. I want to meaningfully contribute to the scenarios I find interesting but it seems I keep running afoul.

Some posters seem to just want a positive affirmation of their scenario and just aren't interested in any potential roadblocks. That's absolutely fine. I get it. I've been there myself. I might personally prefer that they use one of the other venues for the more "fuzzy" scenarios but I get that that isn't up to me. They do need to be honest with us about it from the off though, so that those of us that like injecting some real-world issues to enhance the scenario can moderate/modulate our contributions to taste or even just leave them be. It gets very frustrating to have been seemingly asked for contributions and have some of your hard-won experience dismissed summarily! ...but you asked?!!

I don't really have a solution per se but perhaps we could adopt something of a system, where we would know what kind of contribution would be welcome? Perhaps similar to below:

Soft Scenario - this is my preferred outcome and it's happening regardless!
Hard Scenario - this is my scenario, tear it down so we can build it up stronger, together.

Then we'll all have an idea of where we stand.

 

[steelpillow]

Part of the purpose of this site is to bring together the ignorant enthusiast and the knowledgeable expert. It is inevitable that some threads will fill with the one, some with the other, and others see them meet head-on for better or, sometimes, for worse. Worse, because some of us are highly opinionated but have poor interpersonal skills; for example believing that attacking the person who disagrees with you is a great way to win a technical argument or to change their mind. And that applies equally to the experts and the ignorant.
Our moderators do a pretty darn good job of herding us cats, but if the forum is to maintain its wide remit, then bad experiences are inevitable from time to time. One has to agree to disagree and move on - or [Ignore] the worst offenders - and let the reader decide for themselves who is or isn't talking sense.
Politics is one of the famed four dimensions of any aircraft. I do not believe it realistic to ban the politics from our Alternative History discussions any more than the wingspan. Yet the two subjects traditionally taboo in polite society are religion and politics. The Alternative History forum is a natch for illustrating the consequences. It is to our moderators' eternal credit that they are prepared to patrol it.

 

[Deleted member 2278]

Worse, because some of us are highly opinionated but have poor interpersonal skills

Oi!

One has to agree to disagree and move on - or [Ignore] the worst offenders - and let the reader decide for themselves who is or isn't talking sense.

I hear what you are saying. My question would be is there a good way to perform a dismount without appearing (overly) petulant? "That's it I'm leaving foreverrrrrr!!!" I know it's not to my credit but I do feel like that sometimes.

 

[zen]

Can we have a break and just us give a link of an example?
I'd love to put my oar in constructively

 

[Deleted member 2278]

Only if you pay the oar toll....

 

[steelpillow]

My question would be is there a good way to perform a dismount without appearing (overly) petulant? "That's it I'm leaving foreverrrrrr!!!" I know it's not to my credit but I do feel like that sometimes.

Well, I am a fine one to talk, as our moderators will tell you! But I am learning to simply say, "Let us agree to differ." and, on occasion, go to their account details and click the [Ignore] button.
Sometimes they put a pointed personal question in there to diss you, for example "What credentials do you have anyway?" In such cases I try to ask myself, what is courteous to them and to other readers down the line? So I might add a short, factual reply such as "see the sources I cited earlier", or I might not bother. If it's OTT, there is always the [Report] button.

 

[zen]

Only if you pay the oar toll....

5p and my best tip for 3:30 at Chepstow

 

[steelpillow]

I am trying to make a bad pun out of "oar toll." Apart from an Alp called Ortler and pronounced "ortl-eh" I am not having much luck. But then my wife just remarked, as she often does, "Oar toll yer so!"

 

[Deleted member 2278]

Only if you pay the oar toll....

5p and my best tip for 3:30 at Chepstow

Oh, don't mention Chepstow! My career highlights I'll keep confidential (mainly for my peace of mind) but I'll share a career lowlight. Once, when contracts dried up in the downturn, I worked for a bookies for a time. You can imagine the regular death threats when someone's pony didn't win them a pony were quite an eye-opener to this bookworm-introvert type! Oh and it's 25p minimum bet!

I am trying to make a bad pun out of "oar toll." Apart from an Alp called Ortler and pronounced "ortl-eh" I am not having much luck. But then my wife just remarked, as she often does, "Oar toll yer so!"

Please inform your wife that as I just attempted a groan, snort and giggle at the same time - she owes me a chiropractor sesh!

 

[apparition13]

My only suggestion is to just go with it. Whatever the scenario is, rather than critique it on 'realism' grounds, just go with it. It it doesn't engage you, or seems stupid, or impossible, or for some other reason you can't just go with it, ignore it. It'll probably disappear anyway, but this way people who are interested in the scenario can play with it, and playing around with ideas is one way insights can occur. Something useful may come out of that 'silly' scenario if it doesn't get pooh-poohed out of existence.

Besides, not posting takes way less effort than posting; I do it all the time.

But not this time, obviously.

 

[Deleted member 2278]

@apparition13 if something doesn't engage me or I feel I don't have anything significant or meaningful to contribute, then I do avoid posting, as you say but...

people who are interested in the scenario can play with it

......what if a scenario is interesting and I do want to play with it but my method is (initially at least) one of deconstruction? Can't I have a parallel train of thought in the same thread or do I have to create a new "Inspired by X but Seriously" thread? That probably wouldn't go down too well.

What I ideally want from the process:

1: What if X?
Me: You'll probably need to do Y for that.
1: OK what if XY?
2: oooh and don't forget Z
3: Hippos
Everybody:
Me: XYZ. Yup, that'll work.

What I usually get:

1: What if X?
Me: You'll probably need to do Y for that.
1: You fool! I said X! Look, see, X!

 

[steelpillow]

You: X without Y is like a pencil with no lead ...
...
... pointless.

 

[uk 75]

As someone who injects contrary factors into alternate history scenarios I should I suppose explain my logic.
I see no harm in a small part of the discussion reminding readers for information of real world history and how I think the alternate history would play out.
I also think some readers here find it helpful too.
That said I recognise the burden of this site is on the technical side of projects. This is where the bulk of the interest and knowledge lies.
It might be reasonable therefore to discuss the specifications of a Tu95 in Royal Air Force service or post illustrations of what it might look like (as some sites do already).
But the board could prevent discussion of how or why a Tu95 comes to serve with the RAF as this must inevitably involve politics.
I think I sympathise with my technical friends here and would still use the site if this limitation were imposed. As a student of the history of such things I would miss access to knowledge like alertken's.
But it is for you all all and ultimately Overscan to decide.

 

[Deleted member 2278]

That could be an instructive example! Rightly or wrongly, the first thing that popped into my head on reading your post was along the lines of: Hmmmm... historical RAF operational requirements would really point more to a jet, whether for the bomber, MPA or ELINT role. Perhaps a Tu-16 instead? Hmmm... definite preference for 4-engines though. Maybe a Tu-110 development? The real world informing the alt-his. Tangential to your premise perhaps but hopefully also complimentary. Running with your ball, as it were.

This is where I think communication is the key. If that isn't what you want to discuss, you could go on to say the Tu-95 is clearly superior to my idea and I'd immediately be inclined to defend my position. There are several historical precedents, you see etc. and the resulting back-and-forth could get heated and we would both be wasting time and effort. If however, you were to level with me and say I only really want to discuss the Tu-95 for now, my reaction would be oh, of course! I could then go on to create a Tu-110 with a bomb-bay thread or leave it be.

I still think it could be useful for posters to define some parameters in their OPs. Even if it is Opportunistic Minnow, out! I won't be offended - if you include the smiley!

 

[alertken]

Please don't chop it, Why did Project X happen? Why did no Project Y happen? Context. Not well discussed elsewhere.

Example recently here, Alternative RAF pre-War. Fairey Battle. Q: Why on earth did UK taxpayers fork out for so many?
The actual A is that Ministers were told it would be a death trap against fast monoplane guncraft, but nothing better was in view right now, so if we want to convert Auto industry to Aero, this template would rehearse the whole materials management/Quality Control process needed for non-Aero, even non-skilled labour to qualify to build something better when available.

It's sort-of the same A to the Q: why were so many new types evaluated at Boscombe written up (in the sense) "access to this cockpit is difficult. It should be made impossible". But a headwind of procurement effort had built up by the time it reached Boscombe (ordered "off the drawing board") in hope of delivering something NOW! So: Botha: Wm.Denny, shipbuilders/Dumbarton had been seized by Air Ministers, so if its assigned Botha is deleted...Navy Ministers will claw it back. We would then have lost 250 Sunderlands.

 

[Apophenia]

... I still think it could be useful for posters to define some parameters in their OPs...

I love AltHist and, as alertken has suggests, it can help provide insights into Real World decision-making including planning and procurement. So, what often begins as a simple break from research often turns into a valuable tool. But useful tools can be hard to master.

I share Opportunistic Minnow's frustration but, I must admit, I have no time for 'soft scenarios'. Anyone who just wants their pet theory praised or reaffirmed is being sophomoric. Critique is invaluable. But critique is almost always hard on the ego too. But we learn ... even from painful experiences. Those incapable of learning are simply wasting our collective time (and Paul's bandwidth).

So, why not just make 'hard scenarios' a requirement for posting new Alternative History topics? That would mean that every 'what if' scenario is expected to be responded to with critical analysis (by those who care to). For those responders who can't distinguish a snark from constructive criticism, we now have topic-specific bans.

Of course, all this is easier said than moderated. The more inexperienced, petulant, or jingoistic members will still insist on riding their personal hobby-horses. And trolls be trolls. Other than moderators using up their valuable time to issue warnings, I have no suggested cures.

Anyway, I fully support Opportunistic Minnow's suggestion of having topic initiators define their parameters (without the showboating of 'soft scenarios'). If the initiator's X prompts an unwelcome Y ... welcome to the world of analytical adults. X may remind some members of an off-topic Q ... which should always prompt a new topic.

 

[zen]

Hmmm....
Innocent chap says "what if X was chosen instead of Y"
Or perhaps more pertinently "what if X wasn't cancelled "
And sometimes "what if X was slightly better but in a key way that can result in much better later on"

Which is pretty free floating and reasonable questions to explore.

Opinion 1. " intriguing, but something else say Z could well suffer"
Opinion 2. "I think you are wrong and deluded"
Opinion 3. "According to memoir of A, it was all a sop to keep industry busy until they could kill the lot off for more washing machines"

Opinion 4. "Foreign country G, was already doing something similar, so why not just buy that "

Opinion 5 "unrelated something"

Opinion 6 "personnel attack"

Opinion 7 "you shouldn't be asking this"

And that's how it seems to go.

 

[Apophenia]

Sounds like an argument for "Nuke it from orbit".

If/when that occurs, the loudest complaints will invariably come from those who refused to 'play well with others'.

 

[kaiserd]

While looking at counter factuals can be useful and entertaining I would be among those somewhat sceptical of how this has been expressed on this site in some instances. Too often “alternative history” on this site have they been used as a method for some to get into decidedly dicey politics and/or ride their chosen hobby horses in a manner blocked off for them on other sections of this site.

Some of these tropes are very predictable; very specific eye-of-the-needle scenarios where country X has it’s absolute most powerful Y but country Z doesn’t equally or more so respond with their even more powerful Y despite that not making any sense because country X is the best in the eyes of the contributor, Evil regime A winning War B that they actually lost because of impossible event C because actual war-winner country D is actually useless because particular contributors hates country D more than regime A. Or the magic-realism school where actual historical facts (and even laws of nature and science) aren’t allowed to get in the way.

It’s the propagation of false history and the use of this site to do so that most concerns me. Unfortunately there are contributors with different political views on this site who on occasion are very eager to push and promote their idealogical-driven (“alternative”) versions of history.

I’m not looking to spoil the fun of fans of benign alternative history discussion (and more labelling and information on the intended associated scope and “rules” of a “alternative” specific scenario will assist the rest of us in this regard). However not all such discussions start or end up being so benign but a common recognition of such issues by enthusiasts and sceptics acting in good faith (and vigorous early reporting of those clearly acting in bad faith) would (in my opinion, for what it’s worth) go a long way to managing that risk.

 

[kaiserd]

While looking at counter factuals can be useful and entertaining I would be among those somewhat sceptical of how this has been expressed on this site in some instances. Too often “alternative history” on this site have they been used as a method for some to get into decidedly dicey politics and/or ride their chosen hobby horses in a manner blocked off for them on other sections of this site.

Some of these tropes are very predictable; very specific eye-of-the-needle scenarios where country X has it’s absolute most powerful Y but country Z doesn’t equally or more so respond with their even more powerful Y despite that not making any sense because country X is the best in the eyes of the contributor, Evil regime A winning War B that they actually lost because of impossible event C because actual war-winner country D is actually useless because particular contributors hates country D more than regime A. Or the magic-realism school where actual historical facts (and even laws of nature and science) aren’t allowed to get in the way.

It’s the propagation of false history and the use of this site to do so that most concerns me. Unfortunately there are contributors with different political views on this site who on occasion are very eager to push and promote their idealogical-driven (“alternative”) versions of history.

I’m not looking to spoil the fun of fans of benign alternative history discussion (and more labelling and information on the intended associated scope and “rules” of a “alternative” specific scenario will assist the rest of us in this regard). However not all such discussions start or end up being so benign but a common recognition of such issues by enthusiasts and sceptics acting in good faith (and vigorous early reporting of those clearly acting in bad faith) would (in my opinion, for what it’s worth) go a long way to managing that risk.

My original post was edited removing reference to the existence of some contributors with extreme far-right wing views (per comments from the administrator below).
It is a clear established fact that there are some contributors on this site with and pushing such views on this site on a regular basis; I presume that statement of truth is only a controversial statement for those contributors.
In addition there is clearly such a thing as “false history”, often but not always being pushed for idealogical reasons.
It is this type of thinking by administrators that makes this alternative history section potentially extra dangerous.

[post edited to remove post disclosing moderator communication - this is not acceptable - Paul]

 

[zen]

Could you provide us all with your definition of 'far-right', as this term has been subject to such a flexible interpretation in recent years.
That the only safe assumption is it defines positions to the right of Karl Marx.

 

[steelpillow]

Too often “alternative history” on this site have they been used as a method for some to get into decidedly dicey politics and/or ride their chosen hobby horses in a manner blocked off for them on other sections of this site.
...
It’s the propagation of false history and the use of this site to do so that most concerns me. Unfortunately there are contributors with different political views on this site who on occasion are very eager to push and promote their idealogical-driven (“alternative”) versions of history.

I’m not looking to spoil the fun of fans of benign alternative history discussion (and more labelling and information on the intended associated scope and “rules” of a “alternative” specific scenario will assist the rest of us in this regard). However not all such discussions start or end up being so benign but a common recognition of such issues by enthusiasts and sceptics acting in good faith (and vigorous early reporting of those clearly acting in bad faith) would (in my opinion, for what it’s worth) go a long way to managing that risk.

Just my thoughts on this.
I'd suggest that this is one of the things the [Report] button is for. Simple patriotic "what-if my home nation won" is too easily subverted into nationalistic "we should have won". And it invites "But what-if my opposing home nation ruled the world?" ripostes. Honest patriotism should not be banned, but equally it should not be allowed to push into that kind of territory.
And what is "false history"? It is well known that history is written by the winners. And much gets forgotten. No historical account is totally true. This forum is all about peeling back those false and incomplete histories and revealing the underlying reality. Again, editorial opinion expressed in a spirit of discussion is fine, but subversion into nationalistic "we are the good guys here" is not.
If you think someone's political stance is too far left/right/downhill, don't air it in the thread, hit [Report].
But having said that, admins are human too. What happens if you disagree with them and feel that the issue does need airing? By all means post it here as a generic issue - but, as the say in the British Army, no names no pack drill.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

@kaiserd If you have specific examples of users posting "far right ideology" in this section, go ahead and report it. However, if you disagree with a verdict, you can appeal it. There will in the end be a final judgement on whether the complaint is justified or not. Then you have to accept it.

I have dealt with a number of your reports of this nature. Other admins have too. We differ in our own political views. What I find objectionable, Jens might not, vice versa.

Often it appears to me is that you view all posts by people with right wing views as "far-right" and object to anything they say which seems to align with a right-of-centre viewpoint. it isn't inherently wrong or illegal to be right wing.

I say this as a lifelong Socialist, Labour voting, socially liberal person, and former member of the Anti Nazi League. I have friends who voted for the New Conservative Party (anti-abortion, religious, conservative), and are anti-vax. I disagree with them on almost all social and economic arguments. They are still fundamentally good people. I don't feel a need to censor their views - we have good arguments, and sometimes we both concede there is something of value in the other person's viewpoint, even if we on balance disagree. If you refuse to even talk to people with conflicting ideas to your own, that's just an echo chamber.

I don't recognise your portrayal of this section as riddled with "far right" ideology. But then I don't read every post, so maybe I'm wrong.

 

[Deleted member 2278]

It is well known that history is written by the winners.

I really wish this over-used phrase wasn't so.... over-used. There are plenty of well-recorded failures by what history would record as the "winning" side. Westinghouse J40, Challenger, Dardenelles etc. and etc. It may well have been true once but more recently? History isn't written, it's what you make of it.

I could launch into a full diatribe about those who claim to be objective. There is no such thing as an objective human!

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

I'm locking this topic. I think people's positions have been articulated. A majority in favour of keeping the section or neutral.

It succeeds in its primary purpose which is to remove alt-history speculation from other sections like the Projects sections.

 

[kaiserd]

@kaiserd If you have specific examples of users posting "far right ideology" in this section, go ahead and report it. However, if you disagree with a verdict, you can appeal it. There will in the end be a final judgement on whether the complaint is justified or not. Then you have to accept it.

I have dealt with a number of your reports of this nature. Other admins have too. We differ in our own political views. What I find objectionable, Jens might not, vice versa.

Often it appears to me is that you view all posts by people with right wing views as "far-right" and object to anything they say which seems to align with a right-of-centre viewpoint. it isn't inherently wrong or illegal to be right wing.

I say this as a lifelong Socialist, Labour voting, socially liberal person, and former member of the Anti Nazi League. I have friends who voted for the New Conservative Party (anti-abortion, religious, conservative), and are anti-vax. I disagree with them on almost all social and economic arguments. They are still fundamentally good people. I don't feel a need to censor their views - we have good arguments, and sometimes we both concede there is something of value in the other person's viewpoint, even if we on balance disagree. If you refuse to even talk to people with conflicting ideas to your own, that's just an echo chamber.

I don't recognise your portrayal of this section as riddled with "far right" ideology. But then I don't read every post, so maybe I'm wrong.

In context of comments above - doesn’t appear topic locked yet - not looking to get “around” that if that is the intention.
I strongly disagree with being characterised as targeting all mildly right views (I do not do so). I’m actually quite centre-right in a number of views, my voting patterns etc.
However I have seen admins here write mini-apologetics for some contributors pushing far right concepts like the great-replacement theory (as long as it was done the “right way”), and falling over themselves to excuse inexcusable behaviour (pushing far-right politics and actively trolling and driving away other members) by long standing members due to their historic “contribution”.
Relating back to this topic I have seen a admin pretending there may not be far-right contributors on this site yet edit my innocuous wording to save the feelings of those far-right contributors.
I’m really not looking to be a source of drama and I do appreciate admins have a difficult thankless role. However I do think I have a right to reasonable reply to the comments directly addressing me above and I am satisfied to leave it at this and let others make their own determinations.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Now locked. Regarding the last post - you are entitled to your opinion, however this isn't a democracy. If you dislike the way the rules are being enforced you are free to leave. I can only speak for myself - any post, by any user, which I find is offensive, is removed. If I didn't remove it, then I didn't find it reached that threshold. I try not to ban users completely unless they cause more trouble then they are worth.

 

[Jemiba]

As I was adressed directly, I take to liberty of an answer:
Fundamentally, I don't like opinions, too, that are different from mine. I don't like people, to be wrong ...
To be politically left or right are relative terms. For someone, who is at home more to the left, someone
in the middle already is right, for some on the right vice versa.
Sticking to the freedom of opinion is always claimed by any side, but in reality, very often it's just lip
service.
At the outer edge of every political spectrum you'll find people, sympathizing with (or, if they have the
power, actually doing) radical measures, like deportations of refugees, or terrorist attacks, up to starting
wars and genocides. And in my opinion, it doesn't make much sense to talk to them. Honestly, I'm not aware,
that somebody here seriously made such demands, and if so, I think, that such posts were deleted quickly.
But calling those between, who are still distinguishable from the extreme ends "far right", or "far left"
can be simply regarded as a knockout argument, just aimed at gagging the other side. Problem with such things
always is: The other side's still there, it won't just vanish !
"False history" ... would a scenario, with the Red Army invading all of Europe, having China as it's vasalls,
and slowly, but unstoppable conquering America, turning it into the worlds biggest farm, so turning the world
into a single peaceful family, be another example ? It may be a counterpart to some threads started in the
Alternative History section. But I think, we already had discussions about the inherent plausibility, or
the lack of it before, and of course, the wishes and "hobby horses" of those, who post there, will often be
recognisable. But otherwise, it's just that ... alternative history, and as long, as no rules are broken,
I would regard it rather as freedom of opinion again, see above.
And though I know, that she quite probably didn't mean it the way, it is written, just remind Rosa Luxemburgs
most famous quotation "Freedom is always the freedom of those who think differently" !