• Zagorath@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    I have no idea what that means. The post was about military spending by Australia and Canada, I was pointing out the ridiculous overspending on military in Australia and the related international embarrassment of reneging on a signed deal in order to further increase that spending. It seemed relevant.

    • atocci@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Non Credible Defense is a military satire/shitposting sub. It’s relevant, it’s just the opposite of the usual shitposty takes here.

    • nuke@sh.itjust.worksM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Basically what atocci said. We love military spending here. We simp for the MIC. This is not a forum for political debate.

      • Zagorath@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        We love military spending here

        This is not a forum for political debate

        Which is it? A post about the moral value of political spending—whether it was negative towards military spending like this one, or if it were a hypothetical one in favour of spending more on the military—is inherently making a political statement, regardless of which way it was meant. You can hardly say there’s no room for political discussion in a post about one of the biggest things politics spends money on.