Post in Economy forum calls for violence against a supposed foreign enemy

Post in Economy forum calls for violence against a supposed foreign enemy

A post published in the Economy subforum literally calls to "smash the face in" of those who, according to its author, defend slogans glorifying terrorism and a supposed genocide against Europe. The text places that enemy in "Mongolia" and claims that "we are at war and we must fight." It offers no data, no sources and no verifiable facts. It is a rallying cry, not an analysis.

The response from the other participants does not engage with the call to violence: most ignore it and shift the focus to geopolitics. There are messages declaring themselves pro-Russian, others joking that "the European poodles will be Russian oblasts or they will be nothing," and one that tells the author of the original post that "in Ukraine they are waiting for you with open arms" and that they pay people there to kill Russians. The target of the fury changes from message to message: Mongolia, Russia, NATO or Europe.

The thread does not contain a single figure, a single date or a single verifiable name. Nor any specific news story to react to. It is a text of aggressive opinion that uses the framework of the Ukraine war as a backdrop, but without anchoring itself in any verifiable fact. The only concrete geographical reference is Mongolia, a country with no direct connection to the Ukrainian conflict, which suggests the term is used as a catch-all insult rather than a real reference.

The author of the original post later insists that he is in Europe and that those who hate Europe should accept the passport that, according to him, is being offered to them in Mongolia. It is the same idea with no data: a generic accusation against an undefined group of people whom he claims defend terrorism and genocide. None of these accusations is accompanied by a shred of evidence.

The other participants simply take sides on the geopolitical board: some declare themselves Spaniards uninvolved in the conflict, others identify as pro-Russian, others accuse the author of having switched sides. The conversation never gets to debate the substance because there never was any substance: only a rallying cry and a few labels exchanged. The message calling for physical violence goes unanswered, which in practice allows it to circulate unchallenged.

There is no economic analysis here, no news story, no data. There is a call for physical aggression against a vague enemy, wrapped in the language of war. The rest of the thread confirms it: when there are no facts, only the sides remain.