Different opinion should not be a bannable offense

[Strawberry]

I'm obviously more on the russian than ukraininan side.
I'm also against Covid vaccinations (but not against vaccines in general).

Yet every time I try to counter argument an attack on me, I get infracted.

The post under spoiler was an infraction for nuclear scaremongering.


You do realize that if Russia wants, it can erase Ukraine from the face of the Earth?
And if NATO goes to war with Russia, many countries would be erased and not a corner of this world would be left untouched?
That is basically common sense. If NATO would take over Russia or vice versa is irrelevant when you consider the result from going to war.


and that was the answer to this:


ironically if it comes to a war involving Nato, Russia is going to get obliterated. their paper tiger of a military has been hilariously out matched by Ukraine. they made themselves to look like girl scouts. they've set their economy back decades and have become the laughing stock of the entire world. even xi wants nothing to do with putin. it'll be very interesting to see how this ends. hopefully it doesn't go on for too many more years. this whole thing has got to go down as one of the greatest military blunders in recent history. imagine whelping 200,000 men and getting fuck all. what a shit show.


Promoting a war is ok, but telling people how it actually would go is bannable? Come on.

Someone litrally posted a video in Ukraine thread about Russia sending ancient tanks to Ukraine, but the video is from 2019 and tanks on the way to a museum.
Yet trash like that is allowed to be spread. Just because it's anti-Russian. Regardless if fake shit or not. People here would eat it because they are idiots who can't think for themselves. This forum is full of sheep.
And mods? Mods are very biased and this kind of attitude is not ok. Some are even actively participating in bashing everyone who has a different opinion. Get the fucking forum straight already, it's been a joke for years now. Is it being moderated by teenagers?

[Kilpi]

I think it's ok to ban people for being on Russias side on the war.

[Calfredd]

I think it's ok to ban people for being on Russias side on the war.

Given how Russia had no formal, logical, reasonable, etc. business being in Ukraine, yeah, anyone being on Russia's side in this aren't people of good moral character.

[Strawberry]

Given how Russia had no formal, logical, reasonable, etc. business being in Ukraine, yeah, anyone being on Russia's side in this aren't people of good moral character.

But sending weapons to a country that can't win just so Slavic people kill more Slavic people is of good moral character?

[Surfd]

The post under spoiler was an infraction for nuclear scaremongering.

How is that NOT nuclear scaremongering though?

Like, you do realize that if Russia resorts to anything that even vaguely smells like a whiff of a nuclear weapon, all bets are off on a global scale, which would make it effectively insane to even suggest that it would happen. There's a very good reason that nuclear weapons have NEVER been used in a military conflict outside of the original demonstration of their effectiveness: It's called MAD for a reason, and only a complete psychopath would be willing to risk opening that pandora's box.

You are suggesting that it's "common sense" that a competently functioning military would actually carry out an order that would straight up result in the effective destruction of the world as we know it if commanded to do so? That's not "common sense", that's pure delusional lunacy.

I would take solid odds that if Putin even tried giving that order, his own people would ensure he had an "accident" rather than carry it out.

Nuclear warfare simply isn't going to happen unless there are complete lunatics in control of the military apparatus all the way from top to bottom, because no sane person is ever going to want to pull that switch.

[Strawberry]

How is that NOT nuclear scaremongering though?

Like, you do realize that if Russia resorts to anything that even vaguely smells like a whiff of a nuclear weapon, all bets are basically off on a global scale, which would make it effectively insane to even suggest that it would happen. There's a very good reason that nuclear weapons have basically NEVER been used in a military conflict outside of the original demonstration of their effectiveness: It's called MAD for a reason, and basically only a complete psychopath would be willing to risk opening that pandora's box.

You are suggesting that it's "common sense" that a competently functioning military would actually carry out an order that would straight up result in the effective destruction of the world as we know it if commanded to do so? That's not "common sense", that's pure delusional lunacy.

I would take solid odds that if Putin even tried giving that order, his own people would ensure he had an "accident" rather than carry it out.

Nuclear warfare simply isn't going to happen unless there are complete lunatics in control of the military apparatus all the way from top to bottom, because no sane person is ever going to want to pull that switch.

I was replying to a post that was promoting a war and on top of that spreading false information.
If NATO could obliterate Russia, NATO would now be at war with Russia. NATO is afraid of Russia, and Russia is afraid of NATO. And thankfully Putin is not as crazy as so many delusional people here claim.

I will not continue this discussion as it's not the point of this thread.

[DarkAmbient]

'Nuclear scaremongering' is an infractable thing? What even is that?

[Doctor Amadeus]

Considering there are boots on the ground and entire countries that have taken sides. I don’t think it’s completely unexpected to get heat for going on on the defensive if a country that invaded another and has killed people in doing so. The same individual now flippantly suggest he use nuclear weapons you’re way off on this.

[RahEndymion]

But sending weapons to a country that can't win just so Slavic people kill more Slavic people is of good moral character?

This is quite a weird outlook you must admit? Arming Ukraine is enabling 'slavic people to kill more slavic people' but Russia invading Ukraine is not? One of those things is offensive and one is defensive.

As someone who has family over there and have spent a lot of time on the black sea coast, I am very much on the side of Ukraine. 'Slavic' is ethnic, not cultural. There is no unified Slavic people (see Serbia and Kosovo / the balkans generally). But, you know that, because you list location as 'Yugoslavia' which says a lot more about your ideology than anything else you've written. Was the Yugoslav wars, Kosovo etc, Slav killing Slav? If not, why?

That doesn't mean I think you should be banned for holding an opposite opinion though. I think you're wrong, but I'd rather have the option to chat to you about it and explain why I think so instead of you being deplatformed etc.

However, all that being true, this is perhaps not the best place for it?

[Surfd]

I was replying to a post that was promoting a war and on top of that spreading false information.
If NATO could obliterate Russia, NATO would now be at war with Russia. NATO is afraid of Russia, and Russia is afraid of NATO. And thankfully Putin is not as crazy as so many delusional people here claim.

I will not continue this discussion as it's not the point of this thread.

???

That second quote you posted was not "promoting war" in any interpretation I can see. It was simply stating facts: If Russia actually pulls NATO into it's Ukraine conflict, it will end VERY badly for Russia. And no, no matter how badly it is going, I 100% guarantee you that the Russians will take the loss if it comes to it rather than attempt to put a nuclear "victory" on the table, because basic human survival instincts will ensure that nobody is stupid enough to push the "everybody loses" button. You can recover from a defeat. You can't recover from obliteration.

I mean, lets be honest here, NATO isn't "afraid" of Russia. They just don't want to get involved in a War if they don't have to, because wars tend to get a lot of people killed, and getting people killed is, you know, generally a bad thing (not that Putin seems to have gotten that memo, considering how many Russians he seems to be willing to feed to the meat grinder). But the idea that they are "afraid" of Russia is ridiculous. I mean, Ukraine, a country with basically crap for military power and a standing army that barely registers compared to most world powers has stopped Russia dead in their tracks, effectively handing them their asses, for more than a year now..... you think NATO, who could probably field 10x the Ukraine's military power within a week if called to action really considers the Russians a threat if they are having this much trouble with someone as relatively insignificant as Ukraine, all things considered?

It's not a question of "if". NATO would steamroll Russia if forced into the conflict, without a doubt. Sure, a lot of people would die on both sides, but the Russians would lose.

But NATO isn't just going to initiate aggression because A: They are a DEFENSIVE treaty organization, meaning that if any one of them STARTS the fight, none of the others are obligated to assist, and B: Because they aren't evil sociopathic dipshits like Putin with egotistical dreams of empire and conquest.

On the other hand, Russia IS afraid of NATO, because it IS a defensive treaty organization, and when your dreams of empire revolve around bullying your neighbours with military invasion forces, those dreams become a lot harder to realize when the neighbours form a group coalition to kick your teeth in the next time you try that shit with one of them. Russia is terrified of countries on it's boarders joining NATO because then it wouldn't be able to bully them exactly the way it is currently doing in Ukraine.

- - - Updated - - -

But sending weapons to a country that can't win just so Slavic people kill more Slavic people is of good moral character?

I mean, no Slavic people would have to be killing other Slavic people if Putin would stop trying to invade another country, but then again, I highly doubt Putin really cares how many Russians he is killing for his ego, since he's not the one on the front lines being shot at.

[exsanguinate]

LOL russia is threatening nato with nuclear weapons because they know they would lose. Cmon man

[m4xc4v413r4]

Seems like a valid ban to me. Too bad it wasn't permanent.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

But sending weapons to a country that can't win just so Slavic people kill more Slavic people is of good moral character?

You don't get to play like you've got the moral highground when you're supporting the aggressors. Russia is the reason Slavic people are killing each other.

[VinceVega]

But sending weapons to a country that can't win just so Slavic people kill more Slavic people is of good moral character?

Mhm. That is how unprovoked wars of aggresion work.

You get attacked for no reason whatsoever and have to roll over because you are the bad guy for freaking defending yourself from a potential genocide or modern slavery and theft of their natural ressoures.

Here, something to calm you down:

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

[StillMcfuu]

OP, it's honestly your fault for expecting reasonable discourse with a group of people who can't find Ukraine on a map.

[liyroot]

I lo0ve how every westerner is suddenly up in arms over Russia. Meanwhile the U.S. has been raping/bombing/massacring woman/children in endless wars in the middle-east for the last 30 years.

[masterblode]

You guys all getting baited with yet another topic sponsored by Strawberry your friendly internet troll! Check his other posts if you want to know what Incel culture looks like in text format!

[Nymrohd]

'Nuclear scaremongering' is an infractable thing? What even is that?

It is in that specific thread cause a few posters were repeatedly trying to hijack the entire thread with that issue. If the mods have posted repeated warning and people don't behave, they will get infracted.

[Lahis]

But sending weapons to a country that can't win just so Slavic people kill more Slavic people is of good moral character?

At this point it is clear that killing Russians is indeed of good moral character.

[VoidDrake]

Given how Russia had no formal, logical, reasonable, etc. business being in Ukraine, yeah, anyone being on Russia's side in this aren't people of good moral character.

To say Russia had 0 business in Ukraine, especially in the Donbas region, where majority are russians, is a bit ignorant of you.