Good to know… [adds nuking a country to list of things not to say/argue for on the 'dope]
~Max
I think it’s okay if you suggest that someone nuke a burrito.
#notamod
Of course, context is, again, key here. If the thread topic is, “What should we do if China launches nukes at the US?” then “Nuke them back,” isn’t going to get moderated.
Can I complain that my pizza is infested with pineapple?
In that case I don’t understand what the bolded part has to do with the point you were making,
I can’t think of a context where, if I was a mod, I would warn a poster for (seriously) suggesting we nuke China, unless it was like, a hijack. If you had said it wouldn’t be okay to describe the Chinese as preparing to “infest” India (wrt the troop buildup along that border), I would understand that. It makes your point about the irrelevance of whether the ethnic group is majority/minority. But the nuke thing is confusing me.
~Max
I hope so because I would. 
I think (again, not a mod) the promotion of genocide is not taken well on this board.
Genocide? Am I supposed to assume that nuclear weapons equal genocide?
~Max
I think you’d be safe in considering it large-scale killing with myriad virtually perpetual deleterious (follow-on) consequences, too.
Not trying to start a debate in ATMB - just clarification on whether support for nuclear warfare and/or first strikes is forbidden on this forum.
ETA: Then again I’m not really planning on calling for a nuclear strike, and I don’t normally participate in foreign policy discussions. So maybe it’s better to just drop the whole issue.
~Max
You said you didn’t know a context where a mod might object to the idea of nuking a country. I provided a context. I was giving an example to help you. I was not saying that nuking a country would necessarily equate to genocide, but if in the context it did, it would probably be objectionable.
For example, if someone asked what the response might be to China planning to invade the US, a suggestion to drop nukes would probably be a legitimate comment not needing moderation. (People might object, but that’s okay, this is a discussion board.)
But it probably would not be okay in a thread where people were asking how that part of the world might deal with overpopulation concerns.
There’s a big distinction between a nuclear strike as a tool for genocide and a nuclear strike as a military strategy. If I were a mod warning someone for the former, it’s not over the nuclear strike, it’s for promoting genocide.
Like, there’s a distinction between saying we should arrest a person because of their race and arresting a person because they committed a crime. If I were a mod warning someone for the former, it’s not because they suggested arresting someone, it’s because they are promoting racism.
And if someone proposes a nuclear strike on China as a tool for genocide against ethnic Han Chinese (a majority group), or military action in Crimea as a tool of ridding the region of ethnic Russians (a minority group), I wouldn’t be warning for suggesting a nuclear strike or military action. I’d be warning for the genocide component.
If this was Miller’s point I get it… now.
~Max
Yes, although you might elicit a strong negative response from those who like pineapple on pizza, since your language was strong. You can also complain that your foundation is infested with termites. It’s not a bad word, it’s just a word that can be used in bad ways.
I also agree with Miller’s framing of this discussion. I would say broadly that we will moderate dehumanizing language aimed at any “identity group” of people, so race, religion, ethnic group, gender, sexuality…
I agree with Thorny Locust about the danger of using dehumanizing language aimed at ANY group of people, but recognize a difference of severity in talking about “radical leftists infesting the Democratic party” and “Russians infesting Ukraine”
I think you get it now. 
Yes, this is exactly what I meant, thank you.