We all see and hear what goes on over there. Kim will execute kids if they don’t cheer hard enough at his birthday party or something? He’s always threatening to nuke countries and is probably has the highest domestic kill count out of any world leader today.
So I ask? Why don’t any other countries step in to help those people. I saw a survey asking Americans and Escaped North Koreans would they migrate to North Korea and to the US if given the chance (hypothetical for the refugees). And it was like <0.1% to 95%. Obviously those people live in terror.
Why do we just allow this to happen in modern civilization? Nukes on South Korea? Is just not lucrative to step in? SOMEONE EXPLAIN TO ME PLEASE!?
Why do .ml’s get so triggered with this topic? And y’all invariably paint NK as these absolute saints when we know what totalitarian regimes do and have done throughout the ages.
Removed by mod
Your reply doesn’t really follow the conversation. This is tangential to the main thread. We’re talking about how we present and defend information as a meta commentary on these threads, and not how the egging on of an invasion of a totalitarian country upsets some folks.
Also, did you just make an account to participate in this thread? Your account is brand spankin’.
Removed by mod
This you?
It takes huge balls to go around calling people stupid only to miss the entire point yourself. Terrible troll, honestly.
When you recognize the amount of bullshit propoganda that is consumed daily and realize how false it all is it’s very easy to switch to “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” mode.
Additionally it’s harder to break others (and oneself) out of the propoganda soup without an extremely sharp distinction between the lies being spoonfed and the material reality. The material reality often ends up getting distorted as a result and the cycle continues.
I fully support the idea that we have a problem with bias in the news and people profiting from scandals, and we also don’t need to downplay what the government does. We can push back against misinformation without accidentally bootlicking.
It depends entirely on how you define “accidentally bootlicking” because I think OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml has done an excellent job of calling out how you have been making that distinction.
Taking a step back and decontextualizing how do you think one should make that distinction?
I’m sorry, but Objection has taken the wrong idea and run with it. If you think they’re making a great point, I’d suggest you reread with what I’ve said in mind. I do own that I’m a little hasty to judge .ml accounts from experience, but that’s about it. The rest is Objection assuming things with extra dressing to frame the conversation.
Tbh, I don’t even know what the fuck they’re arguing about now, and I can’t be bothered. Seriously, go take a look a that word salad and the embedded quiz of them just being an extra little argumentative gremlin.
Probably shouldn’t have mentioned my thoughts on that thread, I had hoped to provide some perspective on where I was coming from but probably just confused things for everyone. That’s my bad, back to the relevant point:
How do you think one should make that distinction?
As it comes up? Idk. What, am I supposed to give a monolithic answer now for speaking broadly? I’ve had .ml accounts actively deny the severity of historical events in their efforts to whitewash history. “Oh, it wasn’t that bad.” Oh, really? Sounds a bit sus.
This is not a gotcha just because you’re listening to the other fool.
Yes, because you were perfectly happy/capable of giving one before:
Which while it’s good in theory it appears the phrase “accidentally bootlicking” allows for others, including a certain ‘argumentative gremlin’, to perceive that as meaning “so long as it doesn’t contradict my existing worldview”.
Having a stronger/more rigorous definition would help you with communicating your ideas, allow you to self-check for dissonances and help me understand if there’s anything of actual substance here.
So what’s your definition?
That’s a guiding principle at best, bud.
Cut the sass and the condescending tone.
And that is not my problem if I’ve already clarified but you two are too hung up on details rather than substance and running off on ridiculous tangents. You can take it or leave it and I don’t care either way. I’m done with this pedantic argument over definitions over minutia that I really dgaf about.
So all this bull aside, and I’ll reiterate to cover my bases, my overarching point is: Don’t underplay a regime and make them seem more reasonable than they are by whitewashing history, whether intentionally or not. Sorry if you need further clarification, but I find that self-evident.
Have a good one.
Wooow. Amazing answer. Lol
Can you? You don’t’ seem to be able to.
Because we’ve seen what the real life effect of this kind of mindless jingoism and chauvinism is; millions killed by American bombs.
No, .worlders just can’t stop themselves from strawmanning.
That’s an absurdly broad generalization, and one I’m going to present as proof that you see things in a cartoonish “good guys vs bad guys” framing.