GarbageShootAlt2 @ GarbageShootAlt2 @lemmy.ml

Posts

3

Comments

506

Joined

3 yr. ago

This newspaper has a hard on for downplaying north Korean aggression.

Such a fucking chickenhawk you are. "Aw, these authors want to BUST MASSIVE LOADS all over KOREAN STRONGMEN. They want to be TOPPED by KIM JONG UN!" literally just because they want the peaceful reunification of their nation instead of a war for the US to have effective control of a land border with China.

This author makes every possible attempt to downplay North Korean aggression, blaming it on SK or the US every time.

From what you share I see quoting activists and trying to defuse stories that seem very improbable because there is a long history of SK and US media just making shit up about NK and it being gobbled up uncritically. But please, tell me about unicorns and state-mandated haircuts, it'll be a good use of both our time. The kids eat the rats and the rats eat the kids.

Edit: Oh, but to answer the main question I missed:

It’s gotten to the point where Korean intelligence officials are telling reporters to hold off on relaying reports about North Korean troops from Ukrainian officials until they receive third-party confirmation

Because it's talking about intelligence officials talking directly to reporters, my feeling is that it's an anonymous source, though it should definitely have made this clear.

That would be irrelevant because it's not SK's "free press," it's their government agents issuing this warning.

Seoul is right in the headline.

And in the article (right at the top, repeatedly) it's not SK press, it's SK intelligence agents saying this. The headline wouldn't say "Seoul" and then have it be a private entity; "Seoul" is a metonym for the SK government. People only conflate individual institutions with the government when it's China and some Chinese business does something stupid but not illegal.

It just makes you sound like a dweeb because "disinformation" is the dem-aligned version of "fake news". I don't have the slightest interest interest in your life story.

That's a silly argument. Biden (aside from being an unrepentant segregationist!) acted as an active agent of white supremacy, and Kamala would have too, just like every President has.

As an aside, it wasn't the majority of the population. It wasn't even the majority of the voting-eligible population. It was like a little over a quarter, I think.

Conversely, other social media have been also known to suppress the right and protect the left

Where the hell are these socialist social media sites supposed to be? Are you going to say that it's Lemmy, like that's a comparable example?

Rights are not handed to us by God or by Nature, they are legal constructs, created by people. They are not immaculate or immune to criticism or alteration on the basis of what we think would be better for human society. White supremacy must be smashed to its very core, and part of accomplishing that task is making sure it's as difficult for white supremacists to recruit and congregate as we can possibly make it.

It's bizarre idealism to think that opposition to white supremacy will be overcome with no loss of enthusiasm or membership, that any interference actually has zero effect and we're just better off letting them do what they want.

It was still a white supremacist country under Biden and all previous Presidents and it would have been so under Kamala. This isn't something that gets changed by elections.

I made no value judgements about insulting people (you don't really need to specify "in online debate"), I was amused by the fact that you called it "disinformation" when it was just an insult and pointing out how silly it was.

Compared to last election, several million were people who recently voted Democrat, yes.

You are not intelligent or informed.

Going passed the disinformation in your first line.

lmao "It's disinformation when someone calls me unintelligent and uninformed". What happened, did you get tired of people telling you "that's not what ad hominem means" and reach for the next rhetorical pejorative that crossed your mind?

Bernie is a bastard, but I think it's backwards thinking to blame voters rather than candidates. In a nominal democracy, it's the job of the candidates to appeal to people to get votes. If there is any merit to this idea, we must conclude that the failure was the Harris campaign for not generating the confidence needed to vote for her -- which is a very expected outcome when you're running as reactionary a campaign as she did, calling the wall a "good idea" and so on.

So long as you have an excuse not to read, any pretext is fine

In most lemmy instances, the default feed is a mix of that instance's and popular threads from other instances. Participating in such a thread that you find spontaneously is therefore not anything resembling "brigading," even if other people on your instance also see it spontaneously and participate.

(I am excluding illegal settler communities here)

Israel isn't, you fucking idiot. There can be no removal of settlers unless we have the destruction of the state of Israel. That doesn't mean pushing Jews into the sea, that means the former Israelis who don't flee (as many will) are now living in a restored, non-ethnonational Palestine.

Palestinians don’t want people’s apartments!

Those in diaspora don’t want someone’s garden!

Broadly speaking, assuming they don't need to live under siege conditions, they want their land back. That's what movements like the March of Return were about. If it was your family's house, then whatever mockery of the human condition was built on it by settlers is logically also yours. Talking about stealing gardens is especially goofy since it's materially just a pile of fertilizer and dirt.

The fight is more about freedom than land.

This is such a convenient story because it lets you ignore all the historical injustice and Israel's role as a settler-colonizer and look only at what is happening right now -- Palestinians being penned in and bombed, where of course their first concern is not being bombed -- and make that the whole issue. Remove siege conditions and suddenly they aren't as concerned with their ability to migrate to Egypt, what a funny thing!

My comment was entirely drawing a line of distinction between the two. I don't know how I can make it more clear.

Shit, I thought I deleted it in time after I realized that I misunderstood your implication. I read the insinuation in the opposite direction, that if this is reasonable then Israel's evacuation orders are reasonable, because I've been so submerged in zionist bullshit lately. My apologies.

Who do you think the "someone else" is here? Are you so desperate to scream "But Trump!" at any specific criticism of Harris that you have discarded basic reading comprehension?