Yeah you’re right shits fucked so let’s just accept the status quo, oh would you look at that you’re just supporting the current oppressive system.
Being a centrist or “apolotical” is just being a conservative while still being able to fuck
JEG VIL IKKE MERE! År efter år er det gået på samme måde. Alt er gået som det skal, indtil det er gået galt, og hvorfor? Fordi man er omgivet af hundehoveder, ignoranter, fæhoveder, fejehunde, uden fantasi, et par IMPOTENTE HÆNGERØVE, et par småimpotente grødbønder
My account is named after the character from a series of movies about bankrobbers. It was the only western movie-series allowed in the GDR. The guy had a bit where he would go on long insulting rants against his comrades after they’d fucked up, calling them all sorts of names, typically finishing off with declaiming they were SOCIAL DEMOCRATS (this being the worst he could call them). Here’s a compilation of him tearing into people, and also being torn into a little bit
Here’s a really famous scene where they rob a bank to Elverhøj
Perfect translation 10/10 Maybe there’s a little bit lost in translation between the non focused way “Jeg vil ikke mere” goes than the focused way “I don’t want to do it anymore”, but that’s incredible nitpicking.
Some of those words hit much harder in english lmao. Gonna have to start calling people both impotent pig and “small porridge farmer”
Yeah it’s honestly a really good series. There’s a reason it got big in the GDR. It’s wild what they could deliver while still keeping it comical. Like that text reads as some really deep quote, but in the scene it’s probably played for jokes. It’s great.
My only gripe is how Yvonne ping-pongs between being more insightful than Egon, and being an immense dumbass, depending on what the plot demands
Except for the historical facts which they presented you with, and the reason for giving that context? Each of their claims is basic history.
Do you not believe that what happened in our past shapes our present? Do you just think everything happens disconnected from the other?
So far you are the one who have yet to provide any basis for your claims. The other user gave a succint argument as to why China has reason to distrust western institutions and your response has been “nuh uh”.
Do better.
Where’s the credibility? All you do is call people bots because you can’t handle being disagreed with. Where’s your factual basis for your claims? Where’s your trustworthy sources and references? You have nothing except childish racism and insults
You’re gonna have to step up your game then. So far you’re just a very basic run-of-the-mill chud pigpoop
This stopped being a feasible conversation a long time ago when you tried associating the racist card as a valid argument.
Dude, you’re being racist, it’s been explained to you how, you choose to keep being racist.
“Oh now you’re playing the racist card.” There’s a real easy way to stop getting that card played - Stop being racist
It is very obvious you are a bot.
I thought you wanted to wind me up? If I’m an unthinking machine, how are you going to do that?
If you think I am a bot, why are you engaging with me? What a sad life you must have.
Your logic seems unfounded, I’m starting to think YOU might be a machine :thonk:
You don’t even realise you are answering three threads of the same conversation simultaneously.
No, I do. I just wanna point out to you how you’re being a dickhead. You’re just being a dickhead everywhere. Do you really think there is a LLM advanced enough to carry this kind of conversation, but also not advanced enough to distinguish three different threads? How stupid are you? I know no people stupid enough to make such faults in logic, you must be a bot squidward-nochill
I’m not assuming people are racist because they disagree with me. I’m pointing out that their gut-reaction accusation of calling others a “chinese bot” is racist.
This has nothing to do with disagreeing. I made no assumptions, I pointed out racist language and behaviour.
They brought up that China shouldn’t have blocked initial investigations and instead of replying with any facts yourself
Other users have already engaged with them in this argument, to which they responded with racist accusations of being “chinese bots”.
Since they have already shown that this is how they behave, and since I have similarly pointed this out to them - which also resulted in childish racism as a response from them - why would I in any way validate them with civility?
I thought your purpose was to wind me up, bot now you’re running away?
I wish I could have as smooth a brain as yours. You think you’ve got something, and the second you get the slightest amount of pushback, you run away crying, rather than in any way interrogate your own worldview. It must be nice to be thoughtless like you.
I does sadden me though, because it’s obvious you really think you have something here. Does your eyes glaze over when text crosses 120 chracters, or is there another reason you cannot comprehend what has been communicated to you?
The giant pig shit image, the immediate ad-hominem jump to racism or insults
There was nothing immediate about it. As I’ve already once described to you, I came to this thread after accusations of chinese bots were being thrown out. I came to this thread after other users had taken the time to explain their reasoning, which was entirely ignored.
Again, there is no assumption of racism. I’ve already pointed out once how incredibly racist it is to go “Well if you disagree with me, you’re a chinese machine”. It’s sinophobic orientalism. This has been pointed out, to you as well. Stop pretending like I’m just yelling “racist” at everyone I disagree with.
This is also why most hexbear users aren’t that sad you wanna defederate. You’re delusional. You keep crying about “civility” and “sudden insults” as if these things come out of nowhere, despite every single interaction being like this - One of you libs starting bad-faith discussions, then crying when you’re not being taken seriously.
assuming everyone else is talking in bad faith
Look thru this thread and tell me honestly that you think they’re working in good faith.
At least freagle made an actual argument with historical context and such
Which wasn’t responded to, instead it was derisively mocked.
and even though I think things from the 1800s aren’t an excuse to never work with the west again
That wasn’t their argument. Engage with the text that you’re being presented, stop misrepresenting it. And if you disagree with the notion, then ARGUE AGAINST IT instead of insulting other users, then getting surprised when you’re treated the same way.
they made a point and supported it earnestly.
Yeah, and it was met with bad-faith trolling. Why do you think I should take some troll seriously, just because you happen to agree with them? Civility is a two-way street, I’m not gonna validate some dickhead.
edit: Their response is yet another thoughtless trolling comment, yet you somehow take issue with me? It’s pretty clear by your actions that your only real problem is that I disagree with you.
Also my pronouns are they/them, which I know you can see, so nice of you to throw another form of bigotry in there as well.
Liberals and casual bigotry, name a more iconic duo
I don’t have a John Oliver video, but I do have this xinjiangahr.carrd.co which is a collection of well-researched data on the subject, gathered up in an easily approachable and surveyable format
Fascinating that you decided my comment was worthy of being called out for being lazy, yet the comment that does not engage with the discussion, instead discarding it as “whataboutism” gets no such scrutiny from you. It seems as though your issue isn’t truly “lazy thinking” but instead wether or not I support your worldview.
I will stop as soon as the gut-reaction to context isn’t to regurgitate an old thought-terminating psyop.
“Quiet quitting” is a term made up my small business tyrants in the United States to describe workers doing their job as it is described on the contract, and not going “above and beyond”. They somehow believe they’re owed more than they pay for.
The restrictions for leaving and entering have not been imposed on them externally, this attitude of Korea predates even the Roman empire
This is you saying the thing you said you didn’t say.
I did give sources. Many sources, ones that weren’t Wikipedia.
“Giving sources” isn’t just mentioning them. If that’s the case then I can back up the other user by saying they have their data from Reuters, the UN, the CIA, CNN, AP, internal military documents made available by FOIA, BBC, MSNBC, NPR, etc.
“Providing a source” means you give a reference to a specific text which supports the claim you’re making - in other words it’s it’s linking to them, providing them as references. You’ve only done this for the aforementioned ancient history and three christian dudes.
Listen to Blowback season 3, it would do you some good.
America had a larger infection rate and mortality rate than North Korea.
I know what you’re gonna say “oh they lied about their numbers”. Why would I trust the US to be honest about theirs? Why would I trust the US media in their claims about North Korea lying about its numbers?
The US had several whistleblowers like Rebekah Jones getting arrested/abused/harrased for their reporting on the state of the US obfuscating data.
The american media has been shown to lie time and again, especially when it comes to foreign matters - Most famously about Iraq. What reason do I have to trust it?
The United States has the largest prisoner population in the world and has a history of persecuting minorites and political dissidents like leaders of black lives matter. These dissidents are dissapeared at secret police blacksites where they are tortured. This prisoner population is used as slave labour, which is still legal.
Why would I trust the lies peddled by this authoritarian regime about a country whose population they relentlessly bombed until they’d murdered 20% of it.
It’s always the same bullshit. If they are handling covid well “they’re lying about their numbers”. If they report high numbers it’s “evidence they’re incompetent.”
What reason do I have to mistrust their numbers? They’re not the ones having lied to me for decades.
And it’s not like the US wasn’t lying about its own numbers
Why would I trust the US to be honest about theirs? Why would I trust the US media in their claims about North Korea lying about its numbers?
The US had several whistleblowers like Rebekah Jones getting arrested/abused/harrased for their reporting on the state of the US obfuscating data.
The american media has been shown to lie time and again, especially when it comes to foreign matters - Most famously about Iraq. What reason do I have to trust it?
The United States has the largest prisoner population in the world and has a history of persecuting minorites and political dissidents like leaders of black lives matter. These dissidents are dissapeared at secret police blacksites where they are tortured. This prisoner population is used as slave labour, which is still legal.
Why would I trust the lies peddled by this authoritarian regime about a country whose population they relentlessly bombed until they’d murdered 20% of it.
Yeah tell that to the overworked service worker, or the many other people with two jobs. The fact that a comfortable white-collar dickhead can take time off, doesn’t really mean much to me when every teacher, every driver, every railworker, every barista, chef, roadworker, janitor and every other prole is fucked
The restrictions for leaving and entering have not been imposed on them externally, this attitude of Korea predates even the Roman empire” =/= “we know they don’t let people in because they’re isolationist”.
You’re saying the same thing twice there. The fact you say it isn’t, doesn’t mean anything when the actual statements are functionally the same. No matter what they both place this issue at the feet of the Koreans, which is what the disagreement was about.
They’re isolationist because it’s a cultural value derived from their location relative to their neighbor
So you are saying they are isolationist. Super. ut that has already been argued with you and instead you moved the goalposts to be about proving you said something you thought you didn’t say, which you are now once again saying
I’ve hyperlinked to a few sources. I can hyperlink to more as well.
As we have already gone thru, you’ve hyperlinked to two things. Do you not understand how references work? Do you need everything explained twice? Yes please provide your sources for god’s sake this is the third time I’m telling you how sources work.
Are we basing validity of sources based on fame? How many others agree with it?
You do - you rely on the reputation of your alleged sources by way of them being large established brands. I think this is a silly way of evaluating the validity of a sources claims, but it seems to be your primary requirement.
How many narrative holes their messages have? How old the sources are? Their nationalities? Whether they’re blocked where you live?
Yes this is called being critical of your sources. It’s an inherent part of any dissemination of information - not to just blindly accept statements presented by others. All of the things you mention help evaluate wether the source might have a bias, though the really big thing is cross-referencing claims. Interests of conflict and bias are helpful when conflicting narratives occur.
Do you not get the point of references? Why do you think we are taught from an early age to engage sources with skepticism?
Ah neat you failed to engage with the central argument, instead moving the goalposts to now being another weirdly general discussion.
You were referring to American media and American claims, so this is the framework. Instead of either accepting your sources are flawed, that you have a bias, that they have a bias, that you might not be entirely correct, you choose to shift the discussion to one where you yet again take another incredibly broad position that is so vague it is nigh impossible to disorove. I don’t think you do this on purpose, I think it is reflexive, but I encourage you to interrogate your actions upon encountering data that conflicts with your worldview.
This is your point? A snide one-sentence comment completely failing to engage with any bit of the argument? Do better. Interrogate why this is your reaction to being challenged
m simply stating the observation that there are other nationalities who not only might serve as a spark or derivative for whatever the American media
What does this have to do with a discussion about North Korea as presented by American media? You are not engaging with the argument or the points, you are not even relating it to your own, you are instead reframing the discussion to be about something else - You are moving the goalposts.
Never did I imply I was only talking about things because America was the one doing the narrating though.
dawg your alleged sources were all American media.
Oh hey you managed to find one whole article! Good on you! Is that article the sources you mentioned? I just wanna be sure that I’m not missing out.
No I am presenting you with the logical conclusion to your statements.
If there is any act of moving goalposts, it’s being done in said process of putting words in my mouth.
“Having the result of my actions pointed out to me is putting words in my mouth”. Don’t ask questions if you don’t want them answered.
Name a criteria for what we shall consider a good source, and assuming it’s an ideologically unspecific criteria,
Get it thru your dense skull: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A PERFECTLY GOOD SOURCE. You need to be critical of ANY source, but the only way you can do that is by PRESENTING IT so it can be studied. THIS IS BASIC SHIT. Have you never learned source critique?
When we speak about “good” and “bad” sources, it’s generally common parlance to describe media that is known to lie or which had a heavy bias - Breitbart, Infowars, Epoch Times, Radio Free Asia, Wikipedia - these are all examples of being “bad”. This is not to say that they cannot present useful information, but you should be extremely wary of taking anything presented by them at face value - again you should be wary of all sources, but even moreso one that has a proven track record of a bias.
A source might be good for one thing and bad for another. You wouldn’t trust the press secretary oval office dismissing accusations of sexual assault made by the same press secretary, but you would probably trust it with statements about wildfires in the US. You wouldn’t trust the Japanese government with statements about it having no connection to the moonies, but you’d probably feel safe in trusting it’s statements about shinto shrines or whatever.
You investigate your references for bias, for lies, for truth, you cross-reference with your other references in order to gather a more complete picture, and when you encounter conflicts you weigh the validity of each reference - In large part here the question of “who to trust” should in part be answered by “who do I know has lied before?”
I wish I could go thru life line you, smooth-brained, unthinking, uncaring, perfectly safe in the belief that I am a special little boy. Sadly I have been cursed with the bane of Thought, and so I must interrogate my beliefs when I encounter that which conflicts with them.
I guess that’s what makes me not a lib
You’re the one making claims, you tell me what you think happened that justifies what Russia’s doing, or even provoked them in some way
What claims have I made? Quote them to me please. I’ve literally only asked you to answer the question, WHICH YOU STILL HAVENT DONE. Why is it so difficult?
It’s always funny to me how the people that accuse others of being bots are always so predictable. It’s like you’re running a script.
There’s just no thoughts no perception, you encounter a different worldview and immediately just revert to redditor clichés.
Like looking at it, what seems more botlike, the user that engages with the other, or the user (you) that keeps throwing up some variation of the same response?
Not to mention the fact that both the us and NATO have large botnets, so you being a bot isn’t even unlikely.
Remember me comrades! (lemmy.ml)
New WHO chief scientist backs China fact-finding mission to examine COVID origin (fortune.com)
Russian soldier admits proudly his comrades were killing POWs (euromaidanpress.com)
US post-9/11 wars caused 4.5 million deaths, displaced 38-60 million people, study shows (geopoliticaleconomy.com)
What is the biggest lesson that employment has taught you? (lemmy.ml)
Lemmy might, MIGHT have a small bias towards the left (lemm.ee)
Biden calls China a 'ticking time bomb' due to economic troubles (ground.news)