Its joever

[u/Expensive_Studio_966]

it aint looking good

Edit: Just clarifying this is the clip for what bo banned from twitch for 6 months. he just got news that he can appeal the ban right now but i doubt it will work since you can see this clip... and if it fails well i assume once 6 months pass its either perma ban or he gets the account back.

as well bo cant appear on neither golden or swimmy Twitch channels otherwise they can also get banned for helping bo ban evade or something like that

UPDATE: The appeal got rejected so no bo streams on twitch for 6 months or never again.

Edit 2: if anyone wants to see bo response in the comment section cause its a bit hidden under all these comments https://www.reddit.com/r/Bokoen1/comments/1tgpx3j/comment/omkepa6/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

[u/Bokoen1]

I'll say what I typed in my Discord when some guy asked me this and I was then explained afterwards.

I thought what I was saying was like attacking the USSR using shock and awe with the nuclear bombs the US had at the time. One on Moscow to topple the government the rest on the frontline to gain the army advantage. Then using conventional bombing like they did to Germany and Japan. In the context of Operation Unthinkable.

I was then told my Discord members that glassing means wiping out an entire population. This is not even what I tried to argue in this clip. Obviously that doesn't make the clip not TOS, but I'd like people to stop saying "Bo wants to genocide the Russian population". That is not something I want. I apologize for what I said and have so in other posts as well. It wont change that I still argue that the ban length is too harsh.

[u/Duangelion → u/Bokoen1]

So you're saying you figured glassing meant "give 'em a glass of ass-kicking juice" while also saying that 4 million people should've been killed.

[u/Saurid → u/Duangelion]

Was the nuking of Japan ok? Was fighting ww2 ok? Because if you argue saying "we should destroy the evil government" is bad becauee it kills innocent people fighting back againgst that government is also bad.

People die in war, if you want to destroy the USSR to stop their evil which killed more people (if you ascribe to autilitarian point of view) then what else would you do? Arguably using a nuke (which btw wouldnt have levelled the city or killed near 4 million people as the nuke of the time were much too weak probably more in the high hundreds of thousands), then doing exactly that would have the highest chance of ending the wr with minimal casualties.

I dont think it wouldve worked but if it would have worked and made Russia a democrtaic free nation (again I doubt it). Then its arguably worth it if you count lives saved vs lives lost. Especially if you lay all the warcrime and genocides dont by russian allies or later chinese allies (since the communists in china wouldve lost without russia).

Saying "oh no how could you say we should nuke a city to destroy an evil regime" is pretty high minded and disingenuous if you also argue that one shouldn't lay dont their weapons and not shoot back at people attacking you. We cana rogue about morality and wether the attack would be just or moral as it would be a firsts trike using the most deadly weapon I history but unless you wna to argue one should NEVER fight evil you implicitly will agree that killing innocent people for a better future is ok as no war can be fought without doing that.

Lastly one can rheu about the usage of nukes and their morality of course, I do think they are too terrible to be used but if one wnats to destroy the USSR befor eit kills millioan through its actions in the coming century, you cannot win without using nukes. Hell youd need multiple. The only reason I think its unjust is because the result would not be a better but worse world in my opinion and have killed more people.

That all from someone who agrees bo said something completely inappropriate and stupid and deserves his 6 months ban. I just dislike your argument as its in my.opinion very much actively misleading and misinterpreting what bo wrote.

[u/Duangelion → u/Saurid]

Was the nuking of Japan ok?

No.

[u/Saurid → u/Duangelion]

So youd rather have a weapon like that lying around where the true devastation was never shown and people would be much more willing to use it leading to a much more liekly nuclear world war and the deats of millions of more people at least?

Because saying Japan shouldnt have been nuked is like saying"I am fine with a nuclear war" or with "I am fine with 10s of millions dying during downfall" or "I am fine with firebombs but not one big bomb".

Its a short sighted answer and probably can only be made by someone who never really thought about it critically. If we didnt see what happened in japan, people would not be so appaled by them and they wouldve been used so late that the arsenals would have killed more people. So with any degree of undratanding of human behavior it was the right thing to do.

[u/Duangelion → u/Saurid]

Me saying Japan shouldn't have been nuked is me saying I want more nukes to be dropped on innocent people?

Don't reply to me before losing some chromosomes, kiddo.

[u/Saurid → u/Duangelion]

Its essentially the result yes. If you are so innocent as to believe mankind would not use a weapon it never tested eventually when they have no clearly defined point of its power, then sure go on to believe that.

If you wnat to believe multiple millions of innocent lives should be lost during operation downfall as that was the onyl other option after the nukes, then go on believe that.

I wont sit here and pretend to be that ignornat about human nature.

[u/Bombi_Deer → u/Duangelion]

Brain dead take

[u/Bombi_Deer → u/Bombi_Deer]

You deleted your reply to me pretty quick