"Koreans started the Korean War by invading Korea, so naturally the US had no choice but to drop a ton of chemical weapons on civilian targets, to defend itself.
It's more of a liberal delusion that they're "usually" antiwar, but the one that's happening now is always "different." Liberals are right-wing, and generally their (especially US) meddling with regime change ends up installing a fascist who kills or imprisons the left.
What war? The Korean War from 70 years ago? Because they've been at peace since then, but some loonies in this thread want to go over and start trouble with them.
Jesus Fucking Christ. Stop trying to "liberate" other countries. Don't you understand what that entails? Rampant slaughter of civilians followed by propping up a colonial regime. How many times are you gonna try this shit before you learn? When has it ever worked?
At least DPRK minds it's own business. Imo, the country most in need of a war of liberation is the United States, which not only has a backwards, oppressive regime that's disappearing people off the streets, but also has been directly involved in multiple wars of conquest and aggression, and indirectly involved in more. Whatever you wish upon Korea, let it happen here, let's let China or someone bomb our cities and set up a government they like. Will you be greeting them as liberators? Not so fun when the shoe's on the other foot, is it?
Someday I hope y'all are able to see yourselves for the warmongers you are. I have no idea how liberals are able to convince of themselves as "peace-loving" while saying shit like this.
Personally, I subscribe to "Live Internet Theory." I assume that the vast majority of people I interact with are real people, and bots are very much an exception, and often easy to identify.
The Internet connects people with different views who wouldn't otherwise meet and who might not express their opinions if they did. Most of the time when I see people lob accusations of being a bot at someone, it's either because their worldview is too limited to imagine a person thinking differently from them, or they just want to use the accusation as an excuse to write them off. The reality is, I think most people who post like expressing themselves through posts, and rather than go through a bot and posting that, they just wouldn't post.
Maybe I err too much on the side of assuming people are human, but I'd rather do that than assume a human is a bot. Especially because I find the biggest "Dead Internet Theory" types tend to be insufferably unimaginative and close-minded, and I don't want to be like them.
We have a few communities regarding GenAI, but the opposite is the case: we had to implement a rule to stop external mass downvoting and brigading in those communities
It's not "a few communities" it's every community unless explicitly stated otherwise, according to the mods.
Please tell me specifically what makes this qualify as news. Will you now publish every anniversary from around the world?
No, but this one is important because there are people on here who want to deny these massacres ever happened. Also, it's an ongoing controversy.
Or are you just another person trying to antagonize Poles and Ukrainians? Because it clearly looks like the latter.
That's kind of a strange perspective, isn't it? If someone made a post about the anniversary of, say, The Trail of Tears for example, then I, as an American, would not be offended in the slightest. If I made a post about the Nazi German invasion of Poland, would you say I was "trying to antagonize Germans and Poles?"
Here’s another suggestion perfect for future anniversaries you could commemorate:
My side should have guns, the other side shouldn't. I don't think it's possible to generalize a principle beyond that, because policy should be adapted to specific conditions.
Currently, the right has tons of guns and the left doesn't. Try to confiscate the right's guns and you'll probably have a civil war on your hands. So either add restrictions for new purchases, which locks in the current situation of only the right being armed, or don't, and leave open the possibility of the left getting armed. So, better to have easy access to guns.
This conversation is about whether eating meat is unethical, if you're saying "I don't wanna" then what you're saying is that it doesn't matter whether it's ethical or not, because even if it were shown to be unethical and against your principles, you wouldn't care, because "I don't wanna." Because your treats are more important to you than beliefs or principles.
"Your strategy, eating less red meat, pales in effectiveness to my strategy, blowing up Jeff Bezos' private jet" alright, go blow up Jeff Bezos' private jet then.
Agree with your overall point, but a "revealed preference" isn't necessarily a lie or lake of self-knowledge. A recovering alcoholic might have a revealed preference for alcohol but that doesn't mean they're lying when they say they don't want it or that they're unaware of the temptation they have for it (insane as this may sound, people have actually made this argument before). The whole economic concept rests on massive philosophical and psychological cans of worms about what defines a person's identity and wants, which economists are happy to oversimplify and ignore. The average person can't really be expected to track entire supply chains for every purchase they ever make, which is why we have regulations. Instead of having every individual track every part of the production of every purchase, we (as a society) assign someone the job of investigating the production process to see if there's anything that we would find objectionable.
If a lot of people say that they have a problem with sweatshops, but then purchase goods made in sweatshops, you could argue that their behavior "reveals" their true preference, but it would be equally valid to say that what what they actually consciously express is their true preference and their failure to live up to it is driven by ignorance, succumbing to temptation, or regulatory failure.
The math contributes some to this. Let's say the correct answer is 1%, and out of ten people, 9 of them guess 1% and the other guesses 51% - that one guess shifts the average from 1% to 6%. And if it's 1%, then there's no room for people to underestimate and bring the number back down, and the same is true of numbers close to 100%. The numbers closer to the middle don't necessarily mean that people were more correct on an individual level, but that some people overestimated and others underestimated and it came out closer to the right number. The graph ought to give information about the spread of errors and not just the raw average.
OBJECTION! @ Objection @lemmy.ml Posts 18Comments 1,632Joined 1 yr. ago
The difference between peace and an indefinite ceasefire is a scrap of paper. For all intents and purposes, they're at peace.