this post was submitted on 21 Jun 2024
161 points (98.8% liked)

NonCredibleDefense

6659 readers
452 users here now

A community for your defence shitposting needs

Rules

1. Be niceDo not make personal attacks against each other, call for violence against anyone, or intentionally antagonize people in the comment sections.

2. Explain incorrect defense articles and takes

If you want to post a non-credible take, it must be from a "credible" source (news article, politician, or military leader) and must have a comment laying out exactly why it's non-credible. Low-hanging fruit such as random Twitter and YouTube comments belong in the Matrix chat.

3. Content must be relevant

Posts must be about military hardware or international security/defense. This is not the page to fawn over Youtube personalities, simp over political leaders, or discuss other areas of international policy.

4. No racism / hatespeech

No slurs. No advocating for the killing of people or insulting them based on physical, religious, or ideological traits.

5. No politics

We don't care if you're Republican, Democrat, Socialist, Stalinist, Baathist, or some other hot mess. Leave it at the door. This applies to comments as well.

6. No seriousposting

We don't want your uncut war footage, fundraisers, credible news articles, or other such things. The world is already serious enough as it is.

7. No classified material

Classified ‘western’ information is off limits regardless of how "open source" and "easy to find" it is.

8. Source artwork

If you use somebody's art in your post or as your post, the OP must provide a direct link to the art's source in the comment section, or a good reason why this was not possible (such as the artist deleting their account). The source should be a place that the artist themselves uploaded the art. A booru is not a source. A watermark is not a source.

9. No low-effort posts

No egregiously low effort posts. E.g. screenshots, recent reposts, simple reaction & template memes, and images with the punchline in the title. Put these in weekly Matrix chat instead.

10. Don't get us banned

No brigading or harassing other communities. Do not post memes with a "haha people that I hate died… haha" punchline or violating the sh.itjust.works rules (below). This includes content illegal in Canada.

11. No misinformation

NCD exists to make fun of misinformation, not to spread it. Make outlandish claims, but if your take doesn’t show signs of satire or exaggeration it will be removed. Misleading content may result in a ban. Regardless of source, don’t post obvious propaganda or fake news. Double-check facts and don't be an idiot.


Join our Matrix chatroom


Other communities you may be interested in


Banner made by u/Fertility18

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
all 17 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] boredtortoise@lemm.ee 23 points 5 months ago (1 children)

It's super ironic that Suur-Suomi or Karjala takaisin is mostly a fantasy in the minds of nationalist fascists when Karelians were discriminated against when they fled the war back in the day, and reclaiming the territories now would grow the Finnish population with over 600 thousand Russian immigrants.

[–] red@sopuli.xyz 14 points 5 months ago (2 children)

We don't actually want it back, thanks. A very poor zone without our expected infrastructure, and no Finnish people. It would just be friggin' expensive and it's not like we have a lack of land here. The average population density in Finland is 19 inhabitants per square kilometre (49/sq mi), making it the third most sparsely populated country in Europe.

So nay to reclaiming something lost 80 years ago.

[–] hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 5 months ago

Yeah, exactly same as why Poland wouldn't want Królewiec, it's full of ruskies

[–] boredtortoise@lemm.ee 5 points 5 months ago

Yes, that was the gist of my comment as well

[–] PahassaPaikassa@sopuli.xyz 21 points 5 months ago (3 children)

Only if we get a few billion€ from the UN or something, to rebuild the area to at least some standards.

Oh and someone needs to figure our where all the ryssä goes. Because obviously they cant stay.

[–] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 4 points 5 months ago (2 children)

If the plan involves ethnic cleansing and the UN suddenly becoming wealthy, it may not be a good plan.

[–] PahassaPaikassa@sopuli.xyz 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, thats what I'm saying. Getting Karelia back is a bad plan.

[–] dactylotheca@suppo.fi 4 points 5 months ago

It really is. All the people who unironically want it back really haven't thought things through.

[–] hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 5 months ago

It's not ethnic cleansing if you're US ally, merely self-defense

[–] verity_kindle@sh.itjust.works 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Why can't they stay? Karelia would get awesome again, there would be plenty of jobs.

[–] PahassaPaikassa@sopuli.xyz 9 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Because then a future putin can say hes invading to protect russians.

And providing social care etc to them would bankrupt the country

[–] dactylotheca@suppo.fi 0 points 5 months ago

Oh and someone needs to figure our where all the ryssä goes

I have some ideas regarding that but they're against the instance's code of conduct and I'm pretty sure most of them are illegal

[–] nxdefiant@startrek.website 19 points 5 months ago

"Finnish Him!"

[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 9 points 5 months ago

But I thought Russia was super scared of NATO.

[–] Streetlights@lemmy.world 8 points 5 months ago

Murmansk or bust.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 5 points 5 months ago

Putin: Wait, no, irredentism is wrong!