Preventing joycamptours - a piece of advice for mods

[Cronos Impera]

TinCow, modern history isn't just history.It's part of our existance. We allready have 1/4 of the XX century covered ourselves. We can't get but emotional and biased in our apraisal of Modern History.

I, myself never keep Modern History articles or read them for such because I'll confront it with the experience of my family and get angry.

Anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering. The easiest way to prevent hate is to prevent anger and all I can sense in WW2 threads is anger so I get angry and sart to hate.Check the Wermarcht thread in the Monastery...despite the illusion of calm you can still sense anger and hostility.

Could you ask Herodotus for objectivity over the Greek Wars? Not, because he lived through the period.True history is written by living persons about persons long forgotten.

[Mithrandir]

I, myself never keep Modern History articles or read them for such because I'll confront it with the experience of my family and get angry.

Anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering. .

So why not just stay out of those threads... Yoda..sir

[Cronos Impera]

I do.Check my posts in the Monastery. None regarding WW2 or Communism.
But we don't have a ignore thread option and I still can't figure out how to filter threads.
If we could get a Filter installed I think I could drop my request alltogether. Some thread titles just hurt my eyes and antagonise people.
Why can't you have an opposite of the Favorites options (a thread ignore option or such).
So Hooahguy doesn't bump into a Palestine-Israel thread, I don't bump into a WW2 thread,Sarmatian doesn't bump into a Kosovo thread and Mithrandir doesn't bump into a "Desert Ferrari is faster than Camel" thread.Sorry Mithrandir for the profanity.

[Mithrandir]

"Desert Ferrari is faster than Camel" thread.Sorry Mithrandir for the profanity.[/B]

There'd be no discussion possible, that'd just be silly.

[TinCow]

I do.Check my posts in the Monastery. None regarding WW2 or Communism.
But we don't have a ignore thread option and I still can't figure out how to filter threads.
If we could get a Filter installed I think I could drop my request alltogether. Some thread titles just hurt my eyes and antagonise people.
Why can't you have an opposite of the Favorites options (a thread ignore option or such).
So Hooahguy doesn't bump into a Palestine-Israel thread, I don't bump into a WW2 thread,Sarmatian doesn't bump into a Kosovo thread and Mithrandir doesn't bump into a "Desert Ferrari is faster than Camel" thread.Sorry Mithrandir for the profanity.

What you're asking for already exists. Any user can remove any forum from their view in the User CP. Go to:

User CP -> Edit Options -> Scroll down to Forums To Exclude From View -> Highlight whatever forum you do not want to see (i.e. Monastery) -> Hit Save Changes

Ta-da... no more forum.

[Cronos Impera]

Ok, thanks.

[Cronos Impera]

Sorry for the doulbe post but I was just wondering.
Is there any way to create a unified aproach through encoding for the ignore option?
Like having a menu where you could pick members,tags,key words, forums and such from one single pannel?

[Aemilius Paulus]

I agree that communism and Berlin Wall should be in the Backroom, as well as possibly Vietnam, depending on which course the discussion takes, but taking WWII and I to the Backroom is overreacting IMHO.

[TinCow]

TinCow, modern history isn't just history.It's part of our existance. We allready have 1/4 of the XX century covered ourselves. We can't get but emotional and biased in our apraisal of Modern History.

I, myself never keep Modern History articles or read them for such because I'll confront it with the experience of my family and get angry.

Anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering. The easiest way to prevent hate is to prevent anger and all I can sense in WW2 threads is anger so I get angry and sart to hate.Check the Wermarcht thread in the Monastery...despite the illusion of calm you can still sense anger and hostility.

Speak for yourself. I don't get emotional or biased in my appraisal of modern history. Neither do others who are trained in that academic subject, and there are many of them on this forum. It appears to me that the problem is with you, not with modern historical topics. If you are incapable of discussing a topic in a mature and responsible manner, then the proper course of action is for you to refrain from discussing it. I see no reason why those of us who do not experience similar difficulties should be penalized for your own failures of self-control.

[Quintus.JC]

Could you ask Herodotus for objectivity over the Greek Wars? Not, because he lived through the period.True history is written by living persons about persons long forgotten.

History is about things that never happened written by people that were never there to see it happen. Therefore we can only form opinions about the past, but never know the whole truth. Best to accept that - it's far easier this way.

[Beskar]

One thing I don't understand is how we turned from free love and peace in the 1960's mainstream to today. It is like the 1960's never existed at all.

Though, there is probably more truth in that comment than realised. Many people in the 1960's aren't these people you actually see in Austin Powers and other TV shows, majority of them had quite "normal" lives. So if anything, the 1960's are a complete misrepresentation, or only around for a very brief and certain socioeconomic generation.

[Louis VI the Fat]

All it takes is a handful of self-righteous pricks like Tribesy or the french poster with a royal name to start a flamewar. This is it, elitist pricks who in the Backroom or Monastery exploit obvious fallacies like Godwin's Law to anger you.

I have no doubt that Louis will use Godwin's Law in the opening argument or that he will try to make me appear as a subhuman bloodthirsty balkan nationalist worthy of "Cherem" which in Romanian/Yiddish is written the same and means the same thing "ignore poster".
Louis, if Hooahguy had the politeness to understand and be quiet about it, why do you still insist in your nothingains?

Why am I not politely silent? Because I will not be intimidated by some internet cursing into silence about mass murder.

I can perfectly well discuss 20th century events in a polite manner. If others can't, then it is up to them to refrain from participating.


Then again, it is considered extremely bad taste in Japan to bring up the subject of 'comfort girls'.
Which begs the question: which, and whose, norms ought to apply on the .org / the internet?

The world is full of taboos. For example, there are cultures who think it bizarre that there should be no sign below names that says 'male / female'. Posters will not know how to respond to other posters without this information.
Should the .org accomodate this?

In other countries, where it concerns (recent) history, a culture of silence exists. Sometimes out of larger cultural norms, sometimes to deal with painful episodes of the past, sometimes enforced from above, or enforced by those with an interest in keeping the silence.
Should this culture of silence be accepted by the .org?


These are difficult questions, certainly not as straightforward as they might appear. This is the watchtower, so I'll leave the subject with the questions raised.
I shall pass up on the opportunity to discuss some of the historical events brought up in this thread. The events are known, at any rate only a few mouse clicks away for those interested. Discussing them at lenght will no doubt prove to be fruitless.

[Samurai Waki]

I admire Louis's candor in the WWII/WWI Debates, and I hope that doesn't go away. It gets the discussion away from the continuous recycling of data from previous threads on the subject. It so far hasn't even gotten that bad, it provokes well thought out responses from our German Members, that by-and-large you wouldn't be able to hear outside of an internet forum, and I find that as interesting as the War and the Consequences thereof itself.

If you have a problem with it, you don't have to look at it, its that simple.

[Louis VI the Fat]

well thought out responses from our German Members

Our German members are very polite and knowledgable, and will keep a good discussion even when they think some criticism is unfair. I always have the feeling I can still have a beer with them afterwards and talk nonsense about football.


I had many a conversation about this with Adrian. We never quite worked it out, but I have a distinct feeling that people from larger countries are somewhat more used to their history being discussed than posters from smaller countries. And as a result are more relaxed about being scrutinized, can take a bit more criticism. I mean, every Frenchman, American or German will have read an entire library of rubbish spouted about his country. Fine and whatever and all that. The Finnish, Polish, Romanian poster on the other hand may be less used to being the subject of debate by foreigners.

You have the same mechanism with cities. What does somebody from New York care what is written about NY in the Akron Post, or even in the national press? Whereas if some small town is on the news for the first time that decade, the locals tend to freak out.

[Csargo]

I don't see this as a problem for the forum, but a lack of being able to control your emotions, self-control or whatever you want to call it. I wouldn't say banning a part of history from the Monastery would change that. In fact that is a ridiculous idea.

[TosaInu]

I had many a conversation about this with Adrian. We never quite worked it out, but I have a distinct feeling that people from larger countries are somewhat more used to their history being discussed than posters from smaller countries.

I guess it's how it's discussed and received. Up to this day I hear young German people talking about WW2, almost as if they were responsible for it them self. They aren't, nor their ancestors (most likely being normal people without say).

[Beskar]

One thing I don't understand is how we turned from free love and peace in the 1960's mainstream to today. It is like the 1960's never existed at all.

Though, there is probably more truth in that comment than realised. Many people in the 1960's aren't these people you actually see in Austin Powers and other TV shows, majority of them had quite "normal" lives. So if anything, the 1960's are a complete misrepresentation, or only around for a very brief and certain socioeconomic generation.

aka - Recent History is still relevant to be discussed in conversations about History, etc.