@MentORPHEUS

The user in question apparently lives in the general region

He lives in Morocco. That's like saying a British guy is living in the general region of Ukraine, and therefore should be granted special privileges with regards to emotional outbursts and victim pukes on TRP.red.

Having said that, I would've voted against removing posts and banning him if it were up for a vote.

In the face of this fuckery and the righteous indignation of the user, I saw people here taunting him with the coping-strategies of supposed "Western superiority"

I wasn't "taunting" him with that. I was merely pointing out the fact that he's not really arguing against the morality of Western treatment of the Islamic world, seeing as he's got no problem with the Islamic world doing the exact thing to Africa.

I can fully understand that he has a problem with the pecking order. I would too if I were him. But it's a matter of intellectual honesty when debating: If you've got a problem with the pecking order, then say you've got a problem with the pecking order.

@Stigma

Are we doing the progressive reddit-think thing where hating white people isn't racist though?

As a person of a rather pasty persuasion myself, there's a part of me that wants to embrace that line of thinking ("no such thing as racism towards white people"). Because, really, it comes from a place of viewing white people as superior.

In the mind of your average Redditor, racism is an act of "punching downwards" in the racial hierarchy. Hence, members of a....(God, how am I going to put this?)..."race of higher order" can't be subjected to racism by members of a..."race of lower order". Because that would be "punching upwards".

I know this all sounds very racist in and of itself, in a white supremacy sort of way. But seriously, this is the thought pattern that the so called anti-racists and wokesies actually subscribe to.

And so, why should I - as a white person - object to someone essentially placing me at the top of the racial hierarchy, without me even having to ask for it, or demand it? I mean, racial superiority seems pretty awesome, doesn't it?

So yeah, I'm actually going to chime along on this one, and say: "It's not the same thing, stupid!"

@Lionsmane8

"Everyone I don't like is a leftist"

I don't dislike you. Also, as far as I want to define myself politically, I'm pretty much a social democrat ("leftist").

I'm "woke" though. I don't subscribe to victimhood narratives as a healthy way for any culture to define itself. Take that piece of text that you posted there; That's essentially a victim puke.

And as far as I've got a problem with muslims, or arabs, or black people, or whichever "protected minority", it's that victimhood mentality. I don't subscribe to it. I think it's unhealthy on either a collective, or an individual level.

I think sometimes you guys should consider if perhaps there are reasons why Western culture has consistently outcompeted you throughout modernity. And sometimes I think you should be willing to learn from that, rather than always performing that "someone did something to us, and we are victims" schtick. It's old, and it's counter productive.

(And yes, I'm aware western powers, and all other powers, including yours, have done, and still do, some evil shit.)

@SouthPoleProductions

Would Iran use it? We know that pakistan an north Korea didn't.

What would happen if X would try to nuke someone... factors:

what are the defences of destination (not everything reached the destination so retaliation possible) defensive capabilities that are not yet known but would be used how much facilities are infiltrated, - compliance level of staff to start nuclear war, maybe even self sabotage Trying to nuke someone and failing would be disastrous to the aggressor as of now, unless securing success.

I don't remember where, when, or from whom I picked this up, so take it for what it is. But apparently, the dominating nuclear weapons' wargame doctrine now (for all major players), is that the one with the best anti-nuclear defence is the one most likely to strike first. Hence, the "nuclear arms race" is now more about anti-ballistic weapons and such.

(The context was Russia being annoyed at NATO placing "missile shields" in Eastern Europe, with NATO arguing that they're "just shields".)

It used to be that everyone raced for the biggest, baddest, most numerous nukes, until it became pointless, because both sides could destroy eachother times over anyways. So it shifted into who can neutralise the other side's nuclear response to a first-strike; That party being the most likely to actually initiate a first-strike.