东方红 (The East is Red)

My two cents: At worst its ASB or unrealistic. You can be offended by something as an individual, but your personal offense is not grounds for punishment. On this forum, there are times you may have something like someone writing a timeline of Enoch Powell going racist and creating a utopia that totally works, where it is clearly a racist timeline and genuinely warrants punishment. But that isn't this. Would I have had Rosa Parks murder anyone were I writing it? No. But I'm not writing it. And your personal offense because of her high character and "how dare you" should not factor in to anything beyond your own feedback -- not punishment or kicking or any of the rest.
 
My two cents: At worst its ASB or unrealistic. You can be offended by something as an individual, but your personal offense is not grounds for punishment. On this forum, there are times you may have something like someone writing a timeline of Enoch Powell going racist and creating a utopia that totally works, where it is clearly a racist timeline and genuinely warrants punishment. But that isn't this. Would I have had Rosa Parks murder anyone were I writing it? No. But I'm not writing it. And your personal offense because of her high character and "how dare you" should not factor in to anything beyond your own feedback -- not punishment or kicking or any of the rest.

Seconded, especially the parts that are bolded.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Actually, if someone wrote about that, especially in terms

This is a forum where many tales that are nothing but apologism for European Imperialism. While certainly not stated in such tales, historically many children were murdered directly from this process. Yet in an absurditst story that has someone poison several children, the world is on fire. Next I see a thread that is congratulating the concept of the British ruling China, American domination of Mexico/any Hispanophone Nation I hope you'll be there saying no one has any decency for supporting a process that murders children. Really, this is a silly story that is meant to entertain.

Actually, if someone wrote about that, especially in terms that seem so gleeful and which actually named historical individuals, who, whatever their sins may have been, did not in fact indulge in such behaviour, I'd expect the readers to call the author on it.

Wouldn't you?

It really comes down to whether one respects the historical reality of the individuals one is writing about, or not.

So if not, why use the names and photographs of real individuals?

Seems rather over the top, don't you think?

Now, as far as absurdities go, there are entire sections of the site where that sort of fantasy can go. Several of them, in fact.

However, that is up to the owner and the moderators, who are remarkably open-minded about this - especially given the author's apparent disdain for their publicly posted opinion of this work.

Best,
 
Uuuuuuuuuuggggggghhhhg. Can we just all move on now the problem has been dealt with please? Sorry for sounding rude if I am but now that YiLi managed to do damage control let's not flood this thread with unnecessary posts.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Actually, if someone wrote about that, especially in terms that seem so gleeful and which actually named historical individuals, who, whatever their sins may have been, did not in fact indulge in such behaviour, I'd expect the readers to call the author on it.

Wouldn't you?

It really comes down to whether one respects the historical reality of the individuals one is writing about, or not.

So if not, why use the names and photographs of real individuals?

Seems rather over the top, don't you think?

Now, as far as absurdities go, there are entire sections of the site where that sort of fantasy can go. Several of them, in fact.

However, that is up to the owner and the moderators, who are remarkably open-minded about this - especially given the author's apparent disdain for their publicly posted opinion of this work.

Best,

I know I had to come into this thread before to tell you to back off and leave if you didn't like it.

Now you are thread-crapping here.

Same message as before, but official this time. STOP! Just walk away.

Don't like the thread, don't read it. If you do read it, be polite and civil. If something appears to be over the line use the report button.

DO NOT go on about how bad the thread is, or how over the top it is. Pretty sure the author has acknowledged that it is over the top quite deliberately.
 
The thread is only dystopic for those who read the timeline for what the USA (and by extension the Western world) is doing. For China or Korea in this timeline, the level of progress and growth is utopic compared to OTL. Yes, the content is fun and crazy almost all the time, but it makes no sense to object to one's depiction of a fantasy because you are personally offended by a portrayal of personal heroes. As a person who is quite pro-China, I read all sorts of timelines where, for example, the author has people like Sun-yat Sen become a raving lunatic, and yet I do not disparage the writing because I think anti-personal-hero writing is "borderline ASB" or "sincerely not knowing who was just impugned". Although the poisoning of children is a deplorable action, so is the nuclear bombardment of most of a nation. It cannot be ignored that a nation-wide policy of race-based discrimination was in full effect, constitutionally allowing the arrest, trial, and execution of anyone who was not white. It would therefore be within the bounds of the law to arrest young children of non-caucasian ethnicity simply because they were non-caucasian. Which is the worse crime: a black woman poisoning white children or a white majority government implicitly condoning the deaths of thousands more children simply because they were not white? This timeline's Rosa Parks did what she did as a response to a brutal policy. Would the members of AH raise as much fuss if the poisoner were another black woman? Would the members of AH cry in outrage if the nukes fell on the Iran? They didn't for Vietnam, but they most certainly would have if it were Japan, USA, Britain, or Canada for example.

I know I'm late to the party, but I had to say what must be said from another perspective.
 
The thread is only dystopic for those who read the timeline for what the USA (and by extension the Western world) is doing. For China or Korea in this timeline, the level of progress and growth is utopic compared to OTL. Yes, the content is fun and crazy almost all the time, but it makes no sense to object to one's depiction of a fantasy because you are personally offended by a portrayal of personal heroes. As a person who is quite pro-China, I read all sorts of timelines where, for example, the author has people like Sun-yat Sen become a raving lunatic, and yet I do not disparage the writing because I think anti-personal-hero writing is "borderline ASB" or "sincerely not knowing who was just impugned". Although the poisoning of children is a deplorable action, so is the nuclear bombardment of most of a nation. It cannot be ignored that a nation-wide policy of race-based discrimination was in full effect, constitutionally allowing the arrest, trial, and execution of anyone who was not white. It would therefore be within the bounds of the law to arrest young children of non-caucasian ethnicity simply because they were non-caucasian. Which is the worse crime: a black woman poisoning white children or a white majority government implicitly condoning the deaths of thousands more children simply because they were not white? This timeline's Rosa Parks did what she did as a response to a brutal policy. Would the members of AH raise as much fuss if the poisoner were another black woman? Would the members of AH cry in outrage if the nukes fell on the Iran? They didn't for Vietnam, but they most certainly would have if it were Japan, USA, Britain, or Canada for example.

I know I'm late to the party, but I had to say what must be said from another perspective.

Basically this.

Also, spoiler alert: Rosa Parks is going to be a recurring character who later becomes a politician. If she poisons children, it's going to be awkward for whoever pardons her later on.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Sorry, this may be more of a chat topic, but what

It cannot be ignored that a nation-wide policy of race-based discrimination was in full effect, constitutionally allowing the arrest, trial, and execution of anyone who was not white. It would therefore be within the bounds of the law to arrest young children of non-caucasian ethnicity simply because they were non-caucasian. Which is the worse crime ... a white majority government implicitly condoning the deaths of thousands more children simply because they were not white?

Sorry, this may be more of a chat topic, but what are you referring to above?

Best,
 
Word of advice TFSmith, when quoting someone where the entire sentence might be important to the content of the question, please do so.

January 6th, 1963: One of the first laws passed by the new Republican Congress is the Civil Security Act of 1963, an act suspending Habeas Corpus in the United States. The act also allows secret military tribunals to try civilians, especially those accused of harboring loyalties to Communism.

President Thurmond vetoes the bill for obvious reasons but he is overridden the same day.

At this point the Civil Security Act is still an "anti-communist" law. However, to be tried by a military tribunal implies that the affected civilians lack the same constitutional rights they have when tried by a civilian court. Meaning that anyone can be tried and found guilty for the slightest of reasons. The fact that it is a secret military tribunal makes it more so.

January 10th, 1963: The first arrests under the Civil Security Act of 1963 occur. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., a prominent civil rights activist, disappears all of a sudden.

Here we see the effects of a law designed to be loosely interpreted. We know from OTL and TTL that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was not a communist but was a very prominent Civil Rights advocate. His arrest demonstrates the ability for government forces to simply take people without warrant and trial. Because MLK has not done anything that overtly jeopardises United States national security, his arrest via shady reasons implies that anyone who is suspected of being a "communist" can be subjected to the same vanishing act. This implies that any person of any age can be arrested for alleged communist activities. It's a law reminiscent of Mccarthy's Red Scare and witch hunts during the 16th to 17th century.

January 12th, 1963: Due to the Civil Security Act of 1963, military units are shifted from White to Black neighborhoods in the South. While this prompts rioting, the riots are immediately and brutally put down.

The new policy will have some very nasty side effects in Africa and Latin America if not stopped soon.

At this point in the timeline, it is very clear that the government is fully behind the idea of enforcing this law on "suspected communists who may or may not actually be communists but are most definitely of another ethnicity". The racist element of this law is demonstrated by the troop movements targeting said neighbourhoods.
 
Last edited:

TFSmith121

Banned
Well, it's one post above, so I didn't think it was

Word of advice TFSmith, when quoting someone where the entire sentence might be important to the content of the question, please do so.

Well, it's one post above, so I didn't think it was much of an edit, but anyway:

It cannot be ignored that a nation-wide policy of race-based discrimination was in full effect, constitutionally allowing the arrest, trial, and execution of anyone who was not white. It would therefore be within the bounds of the law to arrest young children of non-caucasian ethnicity simply because they were non-caucasian. Which is the worse crime: a black woman poisoning white children or a white majority government implicitly condoning the deaths of thousands more children simply because they were not white?

So:

1) What nation- and nation-wide policy are you speaking of here that allows "the arrest, trial, and execution of anyone who was not white"?

2) What law, in what jurisdiction, allows/allowed the arrest of "young children of non-caucasian ethnicity simply because they were non-caucasian"?

3) What "white majority government implicitly" condoned/condones "the deaths of thousands more children simply because they were not white?"

Just trying to follow what you're arguing here.

Best,
 
TFSmith, let me spell it out for you,

To answer your questions:
1.The Civil Security Act of 1963 which stipulates that Habeas Corpus is suspended in the United States, and allows secret military tribunals to try civilians, especially those accused of harboring loyalties to Communism.

2. The Civil Security Act of 1963 which stipulates that Habeas Corpus is suspended in the United States, and allows secret military tribunals to try civilians, especially those accused of harboring loyalties to Communism.

3. The Civil Security Act of 1963 which stipulates that Habeas Corpus is suspended in the United States, and allows secret military tribunals to try civilians, especially those accused of harboring loyalties to Communism.

Got it?:D
 

TFSmith121

Banned
So this is all in reference to the fantasy story?

TFSmith, let me spell it out for you,

To answer your questions:
1.The Civil Security Act of 1963 which stipulates that Habeas Corpus is suspended in the United States, and allows secret military tribunals to try civilians, especially those accused of harboring loyalties to Communism.

2. The Civil Security Act of 1963 which stipulates that Habeas Corpus is suspended in the United States, and allows secret military tribunals to try civilians, especially those accused of harboring loyalties to Communism.

3. The Civil Security Act of 1963 which stipulates that Habeas Corpus is suspended in the United States, and allows secret military tribunals to try civilians, especially those accused of harboring loyalties to Communism.

Got it?:D

So this is all in reference to the fantasy world of YLi? Okay, got it.

Best,
 
1) What nation- and nation-wide policy are you speaking of here that allows "the arrest, trial, and execution of anyone who was not white"?

2) What law, in what jurisdiction, allows/allowed the arrest of "young children of non-caucasian ethnicity simply because they were non-caucasian"?

3) What "white majority government implicitly" condoned/condones "the deaths of thousands more children simply because they were not white?"

If "fantasy world of YLi" isn't a good enough answer for you, how about:

1. Apartheid South Africa
2. Apartheid South Africa
3. Apartheid South Africa

Marc A
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Not seeing the connection to George Wallace and

If "fantasy world of YLi" isn't a good enough answer for you, how about:

1. Apartheid South Africa
2. Apartheid South Africa
3. Apartheid South Africa

Marc A

Not seeing the connection to George Wallace and Rosa Parks with South Africa, however.

Best,
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
So this is all in reference to the fantasy world of YLi? Okay, got it.

Best,

So a warning and multiple PMs isn't sufficient to get you to stop thread crapping?

Asked you to stop. Told you to stop. In three different PM you said you would stop. Still didn't stop.

Okay.

Kicked for a week.
 
Top