挂路灯人

Please don’t lecture me on your semantics

I didn’t. Pointing out you have been spreading political messaging in your history (spreading propaganda) isn’t semantics.

Then every word that comes out of my mouth is propaganda?

When did I say that? I understand debateperverts such as yourself can’t help but build strawmen but it’s really annoying and only signals to everyone you don’t have the intelligence to actually respond to the point at hand I hope you know that.

Let me be more specific then: your political propaganda simplified through memes.

English isn’t my first language, I don’t really know what you’re trying to say with this. (Given the rest of your comment it’s probably idiotic so I’m mostly ok with that).

Do I promote political opinions? Yes

So you engage in propaganda, thank you for that admission.

Do I using a f’ing meme sub to do so? No.

Makes zero difference, what a weird place to draw the line in the sand, especially given that for all intents and purposes this is a political memes community.

This is what I was complaining about

It’s an idiotic and hypocritical thing to complain about.

Lemmy is becoming more and more of a ideological battlefield rather than a place to get together to have a good time

I know that like myself many people from outside your imperial core bubble don’t want to/can’t have a good time with privileged Euro-amerikans such as yourself who feel happy talking down on us, our countries, etc. while you parott nonsense propaganda with maximum confidence but 0 real knowledge. You must be too used to your Reddit hugbox where you were the majority and never had to do any reflection. You are the problem.

A quick hop and a skip from US-centrism to Euro-centrism doesn’t really salvage the fact that liberal is still widely used around the world to describe those who adhere to liberalism, the hegemonic political-economic ideology of the west.

Social-Democracy despite its name is in the modern age simply another form of liberalism.

Are you incapable of comprehending what I said?

Admissions against one’s interests hold more weight than claims in ones own interests.

This is a fact.

At no point did I make any claim about it being any media outlet telling the truth or any other such idiotic stawman you are attempting to build.

it is never to “keep the public informed”

When did I ever say it was? Infact my comments very clearly point to the reality of pushing narratives to forward the interests of those who own/control the media.

Just because you happen to agree with it doesn’t make it any more factual or less disinformation than the ones you don’t agree with.

Fucking obviously. Thank you for the truism. But again literally entirely irrelevant to what I said.

Taking bias and interests into account when evaluating how much stock to take in a piece of information and it’s source is a media literacy problem in your eyes?

Are you sure you’re not the one with the problem?

When media admits things that runs against their interests/narratives it is more believable than when it fits in with their narratives and interests generally yes. Is that really a controversial idea?

American centric much.

Liberals are pro capitalism (sometimes with minor treats or reforms for their ingroup). Democrats, Republicans, Social Democrats, Greens etc. all liberals.

I’m not sure the president of Ireland is a good analogy since they don’t sit for life.

Theoretically the Kim’s don’t either hence the elections, they’re just that popular and whether you like it or not that’s how democracy works the person the most people like wins.

All the sources I can find say that the General Secretary of WPK is a de facto power position, not a ceremonial one

Given the republicans are in power in America right now would you say Joe Gruters is central to state power? (Obviously not). Also I never said they don’t hold power just that they weren’t central and spent the majority of their time on LARGELY ceremonial and advisory tasks.

Yeah that’s why I didn’t want to make that particular analogy because it appears to have whizzed over your head even when I included the end bit to try solidify the actual point at hand. The point is the roles they are elected to (which they are in stark contrast to a monarchy of any kind) are high ranking but not central to political power or work. Largely ceremonial and advisory.

The burden of proof is on you. You’re making the claim. Also it’s not an adhominem you should look up what words mean if you don’t know before using them.

ad hominem

Attacking a person’s character or motivations rather than a position or argument.

I did no such thing. I simply said you need to provide evidence for your claims instead of demanding others prove a negative.

Pointing out you are throwing a tantrum does not an ad hominem make.

The comparison I’m about to make isn’t 100% accurate but it’s close enough to make the point I hope. The British royal family theoretically due to their position swears in the pm and leads the country etc etc, whereas in reality it’s the parliament that is the actual central political power. The Kim family is habitually elected high positions like general secretary due to the legacy they hold but in reality most of their time is spent on more ceremonial work like inspecting new developments etc while the Supreme People’s Assembly is the actual central state power. Another similar analogy is the president of Ireland as I understand it signs the laws and swears in politicians but is generally a ceremonial role this analogy is probably more accurate as like the Kim’s it is an elected position however the general point remains.

You’re just hear to debate the quality of evidence! Of course that must be it!

No I’m simply saying you should provide evidence for your claims instead of crashing out and throwing a tantrum demanding others prove a negative.

The DPRK people you met are part of an elite class connected to the regime. Of course they support it.

I never realised farmers learning agricultural science in a neighboring country were an elite class. (Also I don’t think you know what the word class really means). Regime is a silly word (“government I don’t like”).

Great. I also don’t love any country having nukes, so there’s already two of us.

I think it has been proven repeatedly by the US that if you wish to truly be sovereign nukes are non-negotiable which is a great tragedy. (Libya, Venezuela, Iraq, Yemen, etc.)

I was well aware that your point was not about Iran, that’s why I made the cynical counterpoint I made.

Your cynical counterpoint was still stupid as it was about a related but entirely different situation. A country having nukes and being able to bypass MAD are 2 vastly different scenarios.

As for your second paragraph it’s all irrelevant to the point at hand which is that if there is a risk of a country (especially one with a history of attempting to) bypassing MAD against you frustrating that attempt by any means necessary is the logical step to take.

As I understand it after the dissolution of the position of President, Kim Jong il and Kim Jong Un have held positions that are while important certainly not central such as General Secretary of the WPK. The Standing Committee of the Supreme People’s Assembly is the central state power and it’s members are elected by the Supreme People’s Assembly who are in turn elected through direct nationwide blind ballot.

workers paradise

Great strawman of what others are saying very impressive.

You’re replying in support of this workers paradise, are you not?

Not at this moment no. What I’m responding in favour of is people who make claims providing evidence instead of telling others to provide evidence to prove a negative. You’re making the claim the DPRK is a shithole you have to provide the evidence that proves that (and ideally can survive some scrutiny of backing, bias etc.)

The DPRK is an authoritarian shithole. Why are you so offended by this statement?

I’m not particularly other then the fact that the people from the DPRK I met during my time in college were always so nice and proud of how far they’ve come as a nation and seeing you disparage that and generally be kind of an asshole is distasteful.

You’re the one making claims. The burden of proof is on you. Why are you surprised you’re being asked for evidence?

Ukraine did have nuclear weapons and gave them up only under broad guarantees of continued independence… so… yeah.

I wonder what country has a history of not only using nuclear weapons but using “allied” (vassal nations) on the borders of competing nations to host their arsenal to threaten first strike capability. Might want to look into what actually caused the “Cuban” missile crisis. American nukes in Turkey threating first strike capability and the breakdown of MAD.

Also your Iran strawman was fucking stupid and I shouldn’t have bothered responding to it. It was completely unrelated to what I said, even if Iran developed nuclear weapons they wouldn’t have first strike capability on the US so it isn’t relevant to doing whatever necessary to frustrate those attempting to destroy MAD by achieving first strike capability.

so… yeah…

Also also pointing out what is logical for a force to do in the face of certain situations doesn’t mean I support it and especially doesn’t mean I generally support any other force taking related but different actions. Really reminding me why I hate deabtebros.

Not a single dprk source. Please post a DPRK source saying the things you claim they are saying not westerns asserting this is what they say.