gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works to MeanwhileOnGrad@sh.itjust.worksEnglish · 7 days ago"Misinformation" for citing casualty numbers lolsh.itjust.worksimagemessage-square5linkfedilinkarrow-up142arrow-down11file-text
arrow-up141arrow-down1image"Misinformation" for citing casualty numbers lolsh.itjust.worksgravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works to MeanwhileOnGrad@sh.itjust.worksEnglish · 7 days agomessage-square5linkfedilinkfile-text
minus-squarebss03@infosec.publinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up11·7 days agoI don’t see a citation or any numbers in the removed comment. (I don’t see any misinformation in it either, tho.)
minus-squareZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.worksBanned from communitylinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up5arrow-down1·7 days agoThe idea that it is a discretionary war of conquest is disputed, so calling it that will be considered misinformation. Same works on the inverse where not calling it a discretionary war of conquest is also considered misinformation.
I don’t see a citation or any numbers in the removed comment. (I don’t see any misinformation in it either, tho.)
The idea that it is a discretionary war of conquest is disputed, so calling it that will be considered misinformation. Same works on the inverse where not calling it a discretionary war of conquest is also considered misinformation.
Thanks for the explanation!