• Michal@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      ·
      2 months ago

      They also can’t attack assets inside Russia without using Russian airspace. Russian airspace is equally complicit.

    • ThePyroPython@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      ·
      2 months ago

      If I can’t navigate to your house without GPS does that mean when I arrive NATO is fucking your mother?

    • Farid@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      Can somebody explain why this was removed? It didn’t break any rules, “Russian cope” isn’t prohibited by the rules. Just trying to understand the logic. How does deleting controversial opinions (that aren’t hate speech or call for violence) help anyone?

      Side note, I just realized that Rule 5. says “no politics”. How is this even possible? 80% of content here is politics in some shape or form, just like this post.

      • nuke@sh.itjust.worksM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Rule 2 Russian propaganda is factually incorrect. All factually incorrect information that isn’t obviously satire should have matching citations explaining why it’s incorrect.

        Rule 4 Russian propaganda is hatespeech.

        Rule 5 No politics.

        I don’t pretend to be unbiased or neutral. If what you want is a rule that says don’t suck Russian cock by propagating the talking points of war criminals, I’ll be glad to add it.

        How does deleting controversial opinions (that aren’t hate speech or call for violence) help anyone?

        If you came to a defense shitposting community looking for help you may have come to the wrong place.