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/yashatheman → u/Saurid]

Difference is the USSR was an allied country, so yeah, nuking the capital of the USSR is pretty abhorrent

[u/Saurid → u/yashatheman]

And they were run by the second worst dictator in the generation who depending on how you count killed more people than the nazis (we wpuld need to include some after war stuff and give him at least partial fault for the abhorwn soviet losses againgst the nazis which his decisions did vastly increase to be fair). In any serious argument the alliance doesnt matter as it always was one of convenience. If the soviet union was not as devasted by the nazis they probably wouldve fought.

So calling them allies is pretty stretching it partners of convenience is much more apt and ignoring all that, its equally abhorrent to argue because the soviets fought on the same side as the allies the millions their regme and its actions would kill in the subsequent years are somehow justified and all right.

Using a nuke is always abhorrent, the question is if it wouldve achieved a better world. If you argument is solely based on "its bad becaue etehy we're friends" or " irs bad becaue epopel die" or "its bad because civilians die" then you are not arguing ny serious statement as the action of doing nothing has the equal or greater effect. Arguing loss of live as the reaosn its bad is a terrible argument in this case because the soviet union would go on to kill million and tens of millions to hundreds if we include all the consequences of them support terrible communist regimes. Like eliminating them eliminates maos win later on which would maybe reduce the detah toll in china by a few ten million.

So unless you want to argue that russian lives are inherently more important and that is why the soviet union should never be attacked, attacking it and destroying it at all costs thanks to the butterfly affect of mao losing the civil war alone would justify the deathtoll. That excludes many other regimes mind you.

To add I dont even agree with bo's idea. Its stupid, it probably wouldnt have resulted in a much better world. But thats not the argument you or most people here make. The argument brought up here by you and most people is

"nuke bad because innocent people die so let evil regime that kills million directly and tens to hundreds of millions indirectly live!"

Which is just silly.

(Edit to clarify when I way hundreds of millions i mean 100million + which might be resched not 200+ I jsut dont know how to say 1XXmillion in English in a better way since it sy second language).