this post was submitted on 10 Jan 2025
269 points (98.9% liked)
NonCredibleDefense
6829 readers
1446 users here now
A community for your defence shitposting needs
Rules
1. Be nice
Do not make personal attacks against each other, call for violence against anyone, or intentionally antagonize people in the comment sections.
2. Explain incorrect defense articles and takes
If you want to post a non-credible take, it must be from a "credible" source (news article, politician, or military leader) and must have a comment laying out exactly why it's non-credible. Low-hanging fruit such as random Twitter and YouTube comments belong in the Matrix chat.
3. Content must be relevant
Posts must be about military hardware or international security/defense. This is not the page to fawn over Youtube personalities, simp over political leaders, or discuss other areas of international policy.
4. No racism / hatespeech
No slurs. No advocating for the killing of people or insulting them based on physical, religious, or ideological traits.
5. No politics
We don't care if you're Republican, Democrat, Socialist, Stalinist, Baathist, or some other hot mess. Leave it at the door. This applies to comments as well.
6. No seriousposting
We don't want your uncut war footage, fundraisers, credible news articles, or other such things. The world is already serious enough as it is.
7. No classified material
Classified ‘western’ information is off limits regardless of how "open source" and "easy to find" it is.
8. Source artwork
If you use somebody's art in your post or as your post, the OP must provide a direct link to the art's source in the comment section, or a good reason why this was not possible (such as the artist deleting their account). The source should be a place that the artist themselves uploaded the art. A booru is not a source. A watermark is not a source.
9. No low-effort posts
No egregiously low effort posts. E.g. screenshots, recent reposts, simple reaction & template memes, and images with the punchline in the title. Put these in weekly Matrix chat instead.
10. Don't get us banned
No brigading or harassing other communities. Do not post memes with a "haha people that I hate died… haha" punchline or violating the sh.itjust.works rules (below). This includes content illegal in Canada.
11. No misinformation
NCD exists to make fun of misinformation, not to spread it. Make outlandish claims, but if your take doesn’t show signs of satire or exaggeration it will be removed. Misleading content may result in a ban. Regardless of source, don’t post obvious propaganda or fake news. Double-check facts and don't be an idiot.
Join our Matrix chatroom
Other communities you may be interested in
Banner made by u/Fertility18
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Are you saying that the Danes have nothing to do with the kingdom of Denmark?
Does the UK "claim" Canada because of their relationship to the crown?
The UK did claim Canada, along with most of North America, in the Royal Proclamation of 1763. Canada was granted progressively more autonomy over time but the UK still maintained ultimate sovereignty until the Canadian constitution was patriated. The UK effectively ceded its sovereignty over Canada when UK parliament passed the Canada Act 1982.
Denmark granted Greenland autonomy with the 2009 Act on Greenland Self-Government, but Denmark still maintains the authority to modify Greenland's constitutional arrangement. So, much like the UK still held sovereignty over Canada prior to 1982, Denmark still holds sovereignty over Greenland. Apparently there have been some efforts to draft a constitution for Greenland, but that has not been passed into law by Greenland's lawmakers nor has it been patriated by Denmark.
This makes sense. I completely understand this thank you.
Ooohhh.
I did not realize until this moment that I didn’t understand their relationship correctly.
It's not the same as the UK-Canada relationship either though, because the UK isn't responsible for Canada's defence and foreign policy.
Yes, but mostly because it’s a rock in the middle of the ocean, albeit a really big one.
Don’t touch our rock collection.
They do stand in a relation to each other, but they're not the same thing.
As I said, Denmark (country) is in the kingdom of denmark, so they have something to do with each ither.
Oh so this is more of a pedantic thing than an actual reasonable difference gotcha.
I don't think it is for the people on the inside.
It's comparable to saying: no, Scotland is not in England, Scotland is in the UK and England is in the UK.
No, tht's not it either.
Think of the kingdom of denmark as kind of a Mini-EU consisting of Denmark, the Faroe Islands and Greenland.
So if Trump tries to annex it Danish people won't come to try to protect it. Making the image not accurate?
Not really either. While greenland and the others are highly autonomous and practically their own countries, national security is not in their competence but instead the job of the kingdom. Not like NATO where every country has their own military and has to help each other but as a federation where there is only one military.
Niels Anderson does a way better Job than me explaining it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlK3f1cs_l4