This seems to be an intentional obfuscation of what was being removed. To be clear, all evidence suggests that the books being burned by the French and Soviets seems to have been outright National Socialist literature and propaganda, where as the Allied Information Control Division's censorship program covered Nazi literature, Nazi propaganda, militarist literature, propaganda critical of the occupation, and Nihilist literature.
If OC were actually being honest about this, he could have said clearly that "Nazi literature criticizing jews and freemasons" were banned. This is true, but he decided to obfuscate it as books that simply had nothing to do with Nazis. Just "criticism". The fact that he included "books of ideologies they didn't like and deemed as propaganda", is literally just another way of saying "National Socialist propaganda", shows his intentional dishonesty here.
Oh, and you are the pinnacle of truth? Glad you know everything and are confident enough to outright ban users over it.
Do you know what I hate most? Not mere stupidity, not even arrogance, not even maliciousness. It's this pure arrogance combined with stubbornness and ignorance. You represent that perfectly.
Just think, the comment you deleted CANNOT BE SEEN and you cannot be argued with. WHO THE FUCK would take YOUR word for anything you say? Who do you even want to convince?
And what the fuck is with your post history... you are a rabid janitor who is out of control, sniffing his own farts. You are just hated by most people, and you do a terrible job... unless your job is to ruin the forum.
You are the type of person who'd fit perfectly into some censorship job as a cogwheel in the machine of the Soviet Union. You know, for example when someone requests documents, you are the one striking through large swaths of text with a black marker. Or, in a higher position, you'd be the one determining which returning Soviet soldier has to be put into gulags for witnessing things he wasn't allowed to. Pathetic.
You're complaining that I've targeted intentional fraud designed to deceive people. I'm not arbitrating truth. He just happens to know what the truth is and is intentionally obfuscating it. It's not a difference of opinion, it is aggressive attempt to deceive. Had he engaged in simply stating his opinion honestly, it wouldn't have been an issue, as I said.
You're complaining that I've targeted intentional fraud
You accuse him of "lying", not fraud, because fraud is a criminal act that is intended to gain material personal advantage, and it does not necessitate the act of lying. Deception and psychological tricks can do it too.
I'm not arbitrating truth.
That's exactly what you did. Here:
To be clear, all evidence suggests that the books being burned by the French and Soviets [...]
You claimed X happened, someone else (probably) said Y happened, and you claim that you are right and he is wrong. And not only did you delete his comment (to deprive everybody from reading it), you also banned him (so that he cannot even prove his points).
He just happens to know what the truth is and is intentionally obfuscating it.
Isn't that the standard thought process of all who persecute dissidents since humanity exists, neatly summarized in the word "denial"? It suggests there is an unquestionable truth, and then some bigot asshole chooses to be evil and say the wrong thing for the lulz. Then he gets censored, jailed, burned, killed, etc.
Had he engaged in simply stating his opinion honestly, it wouldn't have been an issue, as I said.
And what if you just called it a lie (even "fraud" to make it sound scarier) so that you have a publicly legitimately appearing excuse to ban him? What if YOU were the dishonest one? You lied about it being a "fraud" after all (ignorance or an attempt to deceive?), so will you punish yourself too? Of course not, honesty, which you demand from others, is not important for you. You just want a particular narrative to prevail. And if others lie, but it's something that aligns with you, they don't face repercussions.
Comment Reported for: Rule 12 - Disinformation
Comment Removed for: Rule 12 - Disinformation
This seems to be an intentional obfuscation of what was being removed. To be clear, all evidence suggests that the books being burned by the French and Soviets seems to have been outright National Socialist literature and propaganda, where as the Allied Information Control Division's censorship program covered Nazi literature, Nazi propaganda, militarist literature, propaganda critical of the occupation, and Nihilist literature.
If OC were actually being honest about this, he could have said clearly that "Nazi literature criticizing jews and freemasons" were banned. This is true, but he decided to obfuscate it as books that simply had nothing to do with Nazis. Just "criticism". The fact that he included "books of ideologies they didn't like and deemed as propaganda", is literally just another way of saying "National Socialist propaganda", shows his intentional dishonesty here.
Oh, and you are the pinnacle of truth? Glad you know everything and are confident enough to outright ban users over it.
Do you know what I hate most? Not mere stupidity, not even arrogance, not even maliciousness. It's this pure arrogance combined with stubbornness and ignorance. You represent that perfectly.
Just think, the comment you deleted CANNOT BE SEEN and you cannot be argued with. WHO THE FUCK would take YOUR word for anything you say? Who do you even want to convince?
And what the fuck is with your post history... you are a rabid janitor who is out of control, sniffing his own farts. You are just hated by most people, and you do a terrible job... unless your job is to ruin the forum.
You are the type of person who'd fit perfectly into some censorship job as a cogwheel in the machine of the Soviet Union. You know, for example when someone requests documents, you are the one striking through large swaths of text with a black marker. Or, in a higher position, you'd be the one determining which returning Soviet soldier has to be put into gulags for witnessing things he wasn't allowed to. Pathetic.
You're complaining that I've targeted intentional fraud designed to deceive people. I'm not arbitrating truth. He just happens to know what the truth is and is intentionally obfuscating it. It's not a difference of opinion, it is aggressive attempt to deceive. Had he engaged in simply stating his opinion honestly, it wouldn't have been an issue, as I said.
You accuse him of "lying", not fraud, because fraud is a criminal act that is intended to gain material personal advantage, and it does not necessitate the act of lying. Deception and psychological tricks can do it too.
That's exactly what you did. Here:
You claimed X happened, someone else (probably) said Y happened, and you claim that you are right and he is wrong. And not only did you delete his comment (to deprive everybody from reading it), you also banned him (so that he cannot even prove his points).
Isn't that the standard thought process of all who persecute dissidents since humanity exists, neatly summarized in the word "denial"? It suggests there is an unquestionable truth, and then some bigot asshole chooses to be evil and say the wrong thing for the lulz. Then he gets censored, jailed, burned, killed, etc.
And what if you just called it a lie (even "fraud" to make it sound scarier) so that you have a publicly legitimately appearing excuse to ban him? What if YOU were the dishonest one? You lied about it being a "fraud" after all (ignorance or an attempt to deceive?), so will you punish yourself too? Of course not, honesty, which you demand from others, is not important for you. You just want a particular narrative to prevail. And if others lie, but it's something that aligns with you, they don't face repercussions.
That is censorship. Just admit it.