![Egon [they/them]](https://hexbear.net/pictrs/image/1dee944e-1e8e-4465-89e8-a22e23187ddd.png?format=webp&thumbnail=128)
What is the biggest lesson that employment has taught you?
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.
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?
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
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
Quote where I've insulted you
I meant the projection.
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?
Wikipedia, the website that according to itself is biased https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_bias_on_Wikipedia
One of these biases being nazis https://www.wired.com/story/one-womans-mission-to-rewrite-nazi-history-wikipedia/
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.
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.
America allows people to take time away to recuperate, even for mental health
They literally quoted you...
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.
Regular sources as in MSNBC, CNN, NPR,
Which often repeat unproven stories without fact-checking them, or spinning stories to suit their agenda.
How to make a story on North Korea
"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.
I don't have a John Oliver video, but I do have this https://xinjiangahr.carrd.co/ which is a collection of well-researched data on the subject, gathered up in an easily approachable and surveyable format
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"
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.
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.
Ove er blandt de bedste og hvem end der var stylist for Benny blev ikke betalt nok, gutten havde de fedeste fits
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
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