Russian officials vowed on Wednesday that Ukraine won't be able to shut down Russian airspace after Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky threatened a major escalation of drone attacks on Russian territory and said Russia's skies would no longer be safe for civilian aircraft. Ukraine's drones have
lmao a lost redditor
Removed by mod
gotta love it when reddit.world starts leaking
Two things can be true at the same time. They can be a vibed up shitlib. You can be a moderator trying to use your power to cultivate a narrow and specific interpretation of world events.
Two things could be true at once, both of you could be ignoramuses who are easily manipulated by western propagandists. But don’t take my word for it, here’s what The Telegraph of all outlets has to say on the subject https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2WsQiQ77Co
Sure. It could be. Heck even three things could be true at much. Maybe even three ignorami all easily manipulated by their propaganda de jour. And its not like I’m new to this little panty-bundle pet issue you choose to editorially moderate around. We all see you. We all see what you are doing and have been doing around this issue for years. Just like we see Jordan Lund for what they do. Or Ruud. Or squid.
The issue to me isn’t the disagreement: its your refusal to have it and to use your moderator powers to suppress conversations which you can’t actually engage in, in a public manner, and expect to convince people to come to your side. And what it does, the way its almost exclusive to one particular pet issue: it dramatically weakens your stance.
Any point you could possibly be making which might actually be convincing becomes basically meaningless because you can’t do it rhetorically. You choose to not allow for it. Just like Squid coudlnt defend zionism rhetorically, and so they abused the power of moderation; just like Jordan Lund and their defense of establishment poltiics. These are your peers. These are who you share a bench with when you choose to engage in this manner.
If your arguments were really good and convincing, you wouldn’t need to editorialize via moderation. When you do what you do, it says more about the weakness of your perspective than it does show any kind of strength.
It says plenty about western propaganda and how libs refuse to even consider that the same people who lied about Cuba, Vietnam, Peru, Palestine, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, South Africa, Bahrain, Yemen, slavery, Thanksgiving, Columbus, Argentina, Hawaii, Philippines is certainly telling the truth about Russia and China.
If you have to silence people who disagree with you to make your point, your point is weak. Its not more complicated then that. And this very very very particular form of editorial moderation, is for all practical purposes only enlisted in defense of one particular nation.
If the defense was convincing, you’d never need to silence it’s critics. Why would you ever do that? You’d be silly. Why would you hide your arguments if they are so strong.
But we all know the truth. They aren’t strong arguments. Heck, by and large, they aren’t really even arguments. Its masking a legitimate critic of one bad actor with criticism of another bad actor. They’re independent things. Two things can be true. Two nations can be doing bad things.
Its what MAGA does to dissent in their spaces. Its what liberals do in theirs. No differences. Same goals at the end of the day, to be the hedgemon.
If you think you’ve got some strong arguments, argue against censorship so the discussions can be had. There really are no excuses for this kind of petty tyranny of the moderator at this point.
The same reason we censor bigotry. No matter how many convincing arguments are made against it, people will still let their bias favour the bigot. There’s a reason platforming bigots and fascists is a negative thing. This also applies to anti-science too like anti-vax and anti covid-protection. And this certainly applies to chauvinistic and imperialist talking points that you are defending.