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!?
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.
That’s a better definition!
But also don’t exaggerate a "regime"1 to make them seem more extreme than they are by whitewashing, decontextualizing, fabricating, using loaded language[1], etc.
Propoganda often works explicitly via selectively presenting facts to encourage a particular synthesis or perception. What your are calling “details” and “minutia” are attempts to try and push back against some of that selectivity bias.
That’s the same definition I’ve been using all along. You just wanted it to be written a certain way because you listened to the other guy and got some ideas. That’s been literally my entire point and I think I’ve said it three different ways.
Literally the counterpoint to what I was replying to. See? You guys are rehashing everything that has been said all along. You two think I have this other worldview different than yours or something, and you’re trying to fish me out to be the bad guy without realizing we’re talking about the same damn thing from different angles, yet agree on the core principle. Is that clear now? Am I free to go?
…to not get bogged down in useless definitions that turn out to rehash everything that has been said already? Can we not be practical about it? Must it be a conspiracy? If you’d listened the first time, we wouldn’t be here still.