pull down to refresh
103 sats \ 17 replies \ @petertodd 24 Sep \ parent \ on: Peter Todd - warmonger shill! bitcoin
How do you think we're going to avoid WW3 if you can simply wave around some threats of nuclear weapons, and get to invade whatever country you want and steal their land and resources?
Why wouldn't countries do this? What incentive do they have not to?
Or are you arguing that we should cowardly allow this to happen, over and over again, because we want to "avoid WW3" at any cost?
Conveniently ignore the role the West played in stoking what is going on right now.
I believe "unprovoked" was the word the propaganda machine made sure to repeat hard and often when talking about this war
reply
Again, think about the incentives of this: countries do in fact engage in wars to simply steal from their neighbors.
If you're answer is always "BUT WW3!!!" you're providing no disincentive to doing that.
Butcoiners should be able to understand incentives... Bitcoin's security model is about incentives.
reply
I think the original gripe people had was the optics of officials signing bombs, kinda like rock stars signing tits.
It looks perverse, evil and morally bankrupt.
It's one thing to argue for the war. Maybe one can argue a war to be necessary, but I think it's worth trying to keep our humanity throughout it all, and to see it as tragic.
Instead these officials show they have no care for the victims of war or the human cost of it all. They rather wave around their dicks and rub it in.
reply
If you think that "looks perverse" you're simply incapable of distinguishing between good and evil.
This isn't really any different from the people who call Rittenhouse a murderer.
reply
Imagine if Rittenhouse, after having legitimately defended himself, started taking kawaii selfies with the bleeding bodies and then started meme'ing on Twitter about his kills.
Doesn't mean you're against his defense, it just means... hey man, this is still real human life, have some respect.
reply
reply
It's a war. Dehumanizing your enemy is psychologically healthy.
Killing Russian soldiers is something to be celebrated. They signed up to kill Ukrainians for money (Russia is using hardly any conscripts; they're being kept on Russia). They're evil people and their deaths are not tragic.
And or course, shells are just a weapon system. They're not exactly showing dead Russians here. They're celebrating the gun.
reply
reply
What's sick is intentionally hitting a children's hospital with a missile to try to depopulate Kyiv. Deeply evil Russians did that. Not Ukrainians.
Genocidal wars isn't stopped by agonizing over the humanity of enemies like that. That kind of war is stopped by killing the psychopaths perpetrating it.
That's my photo BTW.
again proof you are a warmonger...
nothing else.
reply
I think I know the answer but it sounds like you consider all Russians as evil. That's where we disagree. Bombs kill both the good and evil. Bombs are warrented in war but trivializing it is tasteless and shows a lack of humanity. Also invites propaganda from the other side as evidence of these things. It's just dumb to do it.
reply
Artillery is a relatively short range weapon, ~20km max.
There's hardly any Russian civilians in range of artillery. Pretty much the only people who are going to get killed by those shells are Russian soldiers, the vast majority of which are volunteers who signed up to fight for money.
reply
now you are a "war expert" but from the comfortable sofa...
suuch a "freedom fighter" LOL
reply
Do you have an argument as to why I'm wrong? Or are you just shouting?
Thank you for proving my point: you are a warmonger...
reply
So it's warmongering to point out the incentives of bad actors?
In my day job, I'm often tasked with imagining what bad actors could profitably do. Is that "warmongering" in some way too?
reply
@remindme in 2 years
reply