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.
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.
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.
Can you? You don’t’ seem to be able to.
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.
Wooow. Amazing answer. Lol
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.
Let’s just review this conversation, shall we? What the other person said was:
So, that’s two examples of egregious misinformation that they pushed back on. How did you respond?
The reason we “”“bootlick”“” and “”“treat them as absolute saints”“” is that you chatacterize any attempt to push back on blatant misinformation as “”“bootlicking.”“” So no, it is impossible push back on misinformation without “bootlocking,” because, by your standards, anything short of uncritically accepting every bad thing said about a US rival (that is, anything short of actual bootlicking towards the US) counts as “bootlicking.”
If I’m wrong, then show me what in their comment led you to conclude that they were bootlicking, aside from refuting misinformation.
I think you’re connecting two things in my mind that were completely separate, and are using that as a springboard to jump to conclusions about my supposed standards based on one flawed premise, then about me uncritically accepting things, and also that I’m explicitly against US enemies. Brother, I’m not even American. Can I not talk about a pitfall that I often see with people defending NK, as an “inb4” if you will? Because I hope you reread the sentence that way.
If anything, my only direct comment about the person I’m replying to was the first question: Why so eager to jump in like that about a known violator of human rights that has voiced unconditional support for Russia, a country actively picking a fight with the entire West side of the world? A tyrannic, totalitarian regime is everybody’s enemy as far as I’m concerned.
But sure, maybe I’m reading the other person wrong too, and I’m unnecessarily assigning blame because of my previous experience with this exact same topic with other .ml accounts behaving that way and swarming the person commenting.
The problem is that even if there are people like that, the criticism gets directed at people with much milder takes. And in this case, you replied to someone with .ml saying “why do .ml’s…” and “y’all…” You were clearly including them, even though all they’d done was to identify some things that are objectively misinformation.
Because of… the truth? Does being a “known violator of human rights” make it ok for people to spread lies? Does it make someone a bad person to refute things that are objectively false? At that point, how could we even determine if anything said about them is true, if their critics are happy to lie, and to attack anyone who calls out lies?
I don’t care who you’re talking about, whether it’s North Korea, Iran, Trump, fucking, Nazi Germany, whatever, if people say false things about them, then I’m going to correct those falsehoods. There’s this whole social disease that correcting misinformation about something inherently means you support it. If someone says “In North Korea, they kill you for having the wrong haircut” and you say, “No, they don’t,” then congratulations, you are now “defending North Korea,” you are now a “North Korea apologist,” or, as some would say, a “tankie.” And then you ask why there’s so many “North Korea apologists.”
Some of us value truth and integrity more than we value bashing whoever the news tells us to hate. And because we have the audacity to interrupt the whole Orwellian “Five Minutes Hate” thing, that makes us traitors if not foreign agents or bots.
If North Korea is my “enemy,” it’s certainly a very small and distant one that’s not really worth messing with. Speaking as an American, my biggest existential threats are all domestic, like the rise of fascism and exploitation by the rich. I can see no reason why I would support my domestic enemies meddling in the affairs of other countries for their own benefit, and if I don’t support my government taking hostile action towards North Korea, then there’s pretty much fuck-all I could do about it in any case, is there? So what difference does it even make what anybody’s stance is on it, what’s the big deal if some people take it too far? The only relevant question with North Korea is “Should our government fuck with them or not” and the answer is obviously “not.”
I think I very much addressed that in two different points to be rehashing this.
You’re saying the same thing I’ve expressed but from a different angle. We’re almost down to splitting hairs, except that you’re taking my words to an extreme. Did I or did I not add the tongue-in-cheek qualifier “accidentally” to licking boots to signify the benefit of the doubt of the people falling into this trap?
Not so distant if we’re going to be fighting a proxy war against them. If you think they’re a remote country not participating in world affairs, then I’ve got recent news for you.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/7/12/north-koreas-kim-voices-unconditional-support-for-russia-in-ukraine
https://www.npr.org/2025/06/16/g-s1-71531/north-korea-soldiers-russia-ukraine-war-drones
What “trap”?? The “trap” of correctly refuting misinformation? How generous of you!
Oh, well that’s very simple. Don’t fight a proxy war against them. I think I may not have expressed my position properly: there are no foreign threats anywhere that are anywhere near as important and dangerous as the ones here at home.
Let’s do a quick quiz. Question 1: I can’t afford health insurance. The people primarily responsible for me not having access to healthcare live in which city?
Question 2: Which country’s government poses the greatest threat to my safety and has the greatest ability to imprison/kill/harm me, as an American?
Now, would you kindly explain to me why I should rally behind the people who are most likely to harm me and who are the reason I don’t have healthcare against people thousands of miles away?
What the fuck are you on about, Jessie?
Listen, if you’re going to be this disrespectfully disingenuous, I’d rather you stop right now because you’re already getting into the realm of obnoxious and condescending.