this post was submitted on 21 Aug 2023
3178 points (98.3% liked)
Asklemmy
43948 readers
750 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It has existed at various times throughout history in different forms and even aspects of the state ideology such as Cheondoism are simply modern manifestations of ancient tradition. There is nothing new about it or its cultural attitudes, not if you ask the Chinese and not if you ask the later Christian missionaries who attempted to do anything there only to be punished for existence.
you have some very strange, very incorrect ideas about the DPRK built on a foundation of circular logic. please start de-propagandizing yourself with that video i linked earlier, it's a very good one.
Based on a video of yours (which I did watch) or based on all the sources I gave (which are plenty and back my "foundation of circular logic")?
You linked two things. One of these is an article about literal ancient history, and the other is an article about three Christians who all lived and died long before the country we're discussing existed. Please, please explain to me how your "sources" are in any way relevant to the topic at hand.
Your circular logic is as follows: The DPRK is isolationist. We know it's isolationist because they don't let people in. We know they don't let people in because they're isolationist. No, I won't pay any attention to the hard fact that they do, in fact, let people in, and that it is in fact their enemies who do not let people into their country.
Point to where I said “we know they don’t let people in because they’re isolationist”.
Also, my sources explain how the two Koreas manifested themselves in the past. Your counter sounds a lot like the old “the Roman republic was not the Roman empire” which isn’t true. They weren’t called North and South Korea at the time. Names change. Governmental systems change. It happens.
Sure! It was right here.
Anyway, we're at an impasse here. You've decided that the DPRK is not a distinct country and that all you need to know about their laws can be extrapolated from the ancient history of the Korean peninsula, and that anything modern which contradicts your juvenile interpretation of ancient history must simply be made up. I have no idea what species of brainworm is responsible for this ridiculous conspiracy theory, and I am not qualified to exterminate it.
I don’t see it, whether in your passage or out of it. Maybe because I never said it. Neither did I say the DPRK wasn’t its own country, or that modern history is made up, at most I was saying its customs of isolating go back to earlier manifestations of North and even South Korea. I did give sources. Many sources, ones that weren’t Wikipedia. They said what I said before I did. What do you bring to the table?
They literally quoted you...
This is you saying the thing you said you didn't say.
"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.
“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”
They’re isolationist because it’s a cultural value derived from their location relative to their neighbors. And again, it predates the Romans. There’s nothing in my comments that make it circular, what I say is intertwined with multiple sources, some unseen, combined which wouldn’t allow me to be circular.
I’ve hyperlinked to a few sources. I can hyperlink to more as well. Are we basing validity of sources based on fame? How many others agree with it? How many narrative holes their messages have? How old the sources are? Their nationalities? Whether they’re blocked where you live?
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
You are putting words in my mouth to claim that I imply a nation’s policy reasoning by mentioning the timeline of said policy. If there is any act of moving goalposts, it’s being done in said process of putting words in my mouth. It is the fallacy fallacy.
Name a criteria for what we shall consider a good source, and assuming it’s an ideologically unspecific criteria, let’s see if we can both follow it.
No I am presenting you with the logical conclusion to your statements.
"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.
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?"
Well, you can stop with your “logical conclusions to my statements” because I dispelled that logic by defining the semantics. Nobody can speak for what another person intends or what they mean, just what is perceived. I laid out a clear difference.
You speak of source critique, source bias, and all sources being good for something as if this whole time you haven’t been bashing America and its practices (some of which you at first overly deny) in the exact same way you accuse me of giving into bias about North Korea. So I’ll ask again, what criteria would you like to use? Because I want to know how, if I’m failing at a criteria you prefer, you aren’t ahead of me in the same act of failing.
"You can stop with pointing out what it means when I say shit, because I also said 'nuh uh'"
You are correct, I have been speaking of source critique and then I have been critiquing the "sources" as far as has been possible BECUSE YOU HAVENT PROVIDED A LINK TO ANYTHING. How are you not getting it? What is with your weird circular logic?
the critique had this been limited to showing how these media have a proven track record of lying and a clear bias. This called source critique.
Get it thru your dense skull you dense motherfucker, there is no such thing as an overtly good or bad source. Did you not comprehend what I described to you?
You have so far posted three links. Two of these are descriptors of medieval kingdoms.
Post your fucking references you massive brickhead porridge farmer
...as opposed to what or who?
I’ve posted many links in various parts of this branching-out conversation. You said the ones you witnessed weren’t satisfying and questioned their validity and place here. So I asked based on what criteria should we both go by when considering a source suitable. That brings us to here. Pretend for a moment I’m questioning the validity and place of your own sources. What would you do then, with both of us questioning each others’ sources? If one of our sources are lying while the other’s are truthful, what sign would we go by?
I could just as easily ask you to list the things I’ve said you want more sources for if they would end up being welcome.
What as opposed to what in what way? What are you trying to say?
We've already gone thru this. You've posted three links. We've already gone thru them. I'm not gonna keep repeating myself. If you're just gonna be doing this circular thing were you don't acknowledge the facts as presented to you, and don't interact with them, but instead just keep repeating the same thing, then there is no reason for this conversation to continue.
Which I then answered. Are you dense?
Then do so you dense motherfucker. Point out where there are issues, point out where they are clearly obfuscating the truth, point out where there are conflicts of interest, compare them to other sources.
I would then interact with your argument. Questioning a source isn't going "well I just don't trust it". It's pointing out why it is untrustworthy - Which you dont do by saying "well I've been told they're untrustworthy." You do it by highlighting a history of untrustworthiness, clear bias, lies, conflicts of interest, etc. If you wanna do so, please I would love for you to actually interact with the argument.
Good thing I provided sources for you to critique and interact with. Please do so, providing your own references as relevant.
I was simply recapping with the first part is all. No need to react to those.
My sources so far have included, as you said, a seeming (to you) random missionary-based website, the BBC, Wikipedia, two affiliates of Britannica, and all the American sources you say you denounce. If you truly are not simply saying “I just don’t trust it” as you say one shouldn’t do, what leads you to denounce every last source of mine, case by case?
I should point out many of your sources weren’t exactly news websites, a few seemed like homemade PSA sites.
This is going in circles.
I'm not saying that, I've taken the time to go thru them and illustrate why they are bad sources for backing up your claim. I have not simply denounced them based on vibes, as you seem to suggest, despite me taking pains to illustrate the process and reasoning.
This was almost something that approached engaging with a source. Now all you need to do is engage with the content and critique it based on a factual basis.
I've already gone thru why "well this is a famous brand" is not a good foundation for "what makes a source good for a given claim", but if you need it in reddit-language: Appeal to authority.
This is obviously going in circles, so I am going to disengage from this discussion. I hope you will one day look back and realise how obtuse you've been.
There are a few you've yet to say anything about. The rest of them you've basically said it boils down to the trustworthiness of the country it's in (or in Wikipedia's case the supposed Godwin's-law-violating bias) but then when it's asked what the trustworthiness itself boils down to and it becomes a subjective matter.
Haven't I?
Your true colors are showing. Imagine if this was a court of law. You'd be seen as imperial for not having anymore evidence than the opposing side yet insisting it amounts to more than the opposing side.
I stopped appealing to authority in the first few comments, then I became ready to adapt to what you wish I appeal to, because based on the lack of clarity about your answer aside from your view on how a source should be critiqued, your stance is not as above mine in being backed up as you make it sound like you believe.
Disengage
...as opposed to?
Well, let's start with the first step, which is citing a source at all. They have asked you to follow through on your offer to cite sources to back up on your claims multiple times, and you just keep getting bogged down in these wacky circular semantic arguments. Currently you are failing to produce any source of any strength or bias.
Many of my comments have hyperlinks to different material supporting what I say, which I've said could be taken as indication I'm not being circular. Is this not what you're currently asking for?
If it's because you think these sources are too biased, that itself is a part of my question you quoted, being what defines bias here? In a world where anyone can point to something and make a case that it must be biased, I'm here asking where the line is drawn between something tolerable and something intolerable.
You've posted a total of three links. One of these is about a medieval kingdom, the other is a story of three Christians that died before the country we are discussing existed and then you've finally posted one single reference, to which I've asked if that is your totality of references. I've asked this because 1. A single article isn't exactly a solid foundation and you have still many unsourced claims and 2. I dont want to take the time to go through your reference with you, only for you to then again refuse to engage with the argument but instead throw up yet another half-assed article. I'd rather just get all your bullshit articles in one go, so we can skip 10 comments of me simply asking you to post your references.
Meanwhile you have claimed that they are isolationist, then claimed you never claimed that, then when that was pointed out to you, you claimed that wasn't what you said, you then went on to say they were being isolationist.
Thru all of this you have posted a total of three links.
You are either an impotent unimaginative little bad-faith goblin, or you are a brickheaded ignorant dog-headed clown.
The medieval kingdoms are past manifestations of North and South Korea. If you studied Korean linguistics, I doubt you’d be questioning that they the manifestations even have different names.
And you wonder why I hesitate as well as bring up the whole criteria question amidst you at other times asking for an increased quantity of sources rather than increased quality), especially as what you’re saying is more derailing.
I did not claim they weren’t isolationist, nor did I say it was for any reason aside from it being one of their cultural values/habits. Is this not you using the straw man fallacy? Would you be arguing against the point I’m not making as if I made it if you were able to come to terms with the fact I didn’t make it, or would you be praising the fact that I in actuality agree with you on that point?
Jesus Christ you really are just going in a roundabout. You claim history from middle ages is relevant, but moderns history is spurious, okay good whatever. By that logic the us if a fascist slave state, as is every single European country.
Sure it's a strawman fallacy to quote things you said back to you, that's what a strawman is allright. Wanting to engage with your sources is whataboutism or whatever. You still haven't engaged in any source critique. You speak of studying history and linguistics, but you fail the very base-level tools of both of those studies.
Yeah good some website says they're isolationist, because they say they are.
Conditions that, say it with me, are imposed by the us. Here's your favorite source Wikipedia here's the state dep websitehttps://www.state.gov/democratic-peoples-republic-of-korea-sanctions/. It is in fact incredibly simple to both visit the dprk, as long as you're not American https://www.youngpioneertours.com/north-korea-tours/
this has already been argued with you, which you refused to engage with, which is how we ended up in this semantic rabbit hole. You keep arguing they're isolationist because of culture or medieval history, completely ignoring modern history and current affairs. But this has already been pointed out to you.
It’s a strawman to say I said things I didn’t say in order to make it seem as if there is something I’ve said which can be argued against, which is exactly what you’re doing by saying “ it’s a strawman fallacy to quote things you said back to you”. If I perceived you as saying something, and you clarified what you meant and revealed I was perceiving it wrong compared to what you intended, I would respect this.
...as opposed to? It’s not pointing out a contradiction or hole or exposing a lie simply to dismiss the article’s claim.
...based on?
You say that like being restricted to one area when you visit and needing a supervisor is that much better.
Allright you're just going in circles, it's obvious you refuse to engage with anything I put in front of you, and you keep behaving as if I haven't gone into every single one of your arguments. You're wasting both of our times by willfully choosing to be obtuse, so I am going to disengage from this conversation
Did you not ask for more sources and did I not give a few more? Did I not ask what criteria you want us to go by with sources and did you not say there was no inherent criteria except to demonstrate where points in an article conflict? If in your answer to that question you were explaining your chosen criteria, you have a funny way of showing it.
You've given exactly one more, which I engaged with. Stop being obtuse.
I've given you the criteria. You kept asking for the criteria, yet you had received it.
Alright, if that's the criteria (even though it can be perceived as a lack thereof), then there's really nothing you're going by or can go by based on your sources because they're all even in that regard.
I'll give an example in one of them. One of your sources claims that North Korea allows people in like any other nation as long as it's not one of their three opponents... yet the sources also allude to the fact it's barricaded, with a river to the North and a guarded wall to the South.
Disengage
...as opposed to?
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=cGZkCPo7tC0
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=oGBO-WMrlIQ
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.