6d ago

How come nobody does anything about North Korea?

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!?

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context

269 comments

Let's just review this conversation, shall we? What the other person said was:
Do you seriously believe they execute ppl for having the same haircut as Kim? And then execute ppl for having a different haircut from him?
They execute generals all the time, then the generals appear alive a few months later. That’s that mystical Juche necromancy for ya.
So, that's two examples of egregious misinformation that they pushed back on. How did you respond?
And y’all invariably paint NK as these absolute saints
We can push back against misinformation without accidentally bootlicking.
The reason we """bootlick""" and """treat them as absolute saints""" is that you chatacterize any attempt to push back on blatant misinformation as """bootlicking.""" So no, it is impossible push back on misinformation without "bootlocking," because, by your standards, anything short of uncritically accepting every bad thing said about a US rival (that is, anything short of actual bootlicking towards the US) counts as "bootlicking."
If I'm wrong, then show me what in their comment led you to conclude that they were bootlicking, aside from refuting misinformation.
- I think you're connecting two things in my mind that were completely separate, and are using that as a springboard to jump to conclusions about my supposed standards based on one flawed premise, then about me uncritically accepting things, and also that I'm explicitly against US enemies. Brother, I'm not even American. Can I not talk about a pitfall that I often see with people defending NK, as an "inb4" if you will? Because I hope you reread the sentence that way.
  If anything, my only direct comment about the person I'm replying to was the first question: Why so eager to jump in like that about a known violator of human rights that has voiced unconditional support for Russia, a country actively picking a fight with the entire West side of the world? A tyrannic, totalitarian regime is everybody's enemy as far as I'm concerned.
  But sure, maybe I'm reading the other person wrong too, and I'm unnecessarily assigning blame because of my previous experience with this exact same topic with other .ml accounts behaving that way and swarming the person commenting.
  
  Can I not talk about a pitfall that I often see with people defending NK, as an “inb4” if you will? Because I hope you reread the sentence that way.
  The problem is that even if there are people like that, the criticism gets directed at people with much milder takes. And in this case, you replied to someone with .ml saying "why do .ml's..." and "y'all..." You were clearly including them, even though all they'd done was to identify some things that are objectively misinformation.
  Why so eager to jump in like that about a known violator of human rights that has voiced unconditional support for Russia, a country actively picking a fight with the entire West side of the world?
  Because of... the truth? Does being a "known violator of human rights" make it ok for people to spread lies? Does it make someone a bad person to refute things that are objectively false? At that point, how could we even determine if anything said about them is true, if their critics are happy to lie, and to attack anyone who calls out lies?
  I don't care who you're talking about, whether it's North Korea, Iran, Trump, fucking, Nazi Germany, whatever, if people say false things about them, then I'm going to correct those falsehoods. There's this whole social disease that correcting misinformation about something inherently means you support it. If someone says "In North Korea, they kill you for having the wrong haircut" and you say, "No, they don't," then congratulations, you are now "defending North Korea," you are now a "North Korea apologist," or, as some would say, a "tankie." And then you ask why there's so many "North Korea apologists."
  Some of us value truth and integrity more than we value bashing whoever the news tells us to hate. And because we have the audacity to interrupt the whole Orwellian "Five Minutes Hate" thing, that makes us traitors if not foreign agents or bots.
  If North Korea is my "enemy," it's certainly a very small and distant one that's not really worth messing with. Speaking as an American, my biggest existential threats are all domestic, like the rise of fascism and exploitation by the rich. I can see no reason why I would support my domestic enemies meddling in the affairs of other countries for their own benefit, and if I don't support my government taking hostile action towards North Korea, then there's pretty much fuck-all I could do about it in any case, is there? So what difference does it even make what anybody's stance is on it, what's the big deal if some people take it too far? The only relevant question with North Korea is "Should our government fuck with them or not" and the answer is obviously "not."
  
  And in this case, you replied to someone with .ml saying “why do .ml’s…” and “y’all…” You were clearly including them
  I think I very much addressed that in two different points to be rehashing this.
  Because of… the truth? Does being a “known violator of human rights” make it ok for people to spread lies?
  You're saying the same thing I've expressed but from a different angle. We're almost down to splitting hairs, except that you're taking my words to an extreme. Did I or did I not add the tongue-in-cheek qualifier "accidentally" to licking boots to signify the benefit of the doubt of the people falling into this trap?
  If North Korea is my “enemy,” it’s certainly a very small and distant one that’s not really worth messing with.
  Not so distant if we're going to be fighting a proxy war against them. If you think they're a remote country not participating in world affairs, then I've got recent news for you.
  https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/7/12/north-koreas-kim-voices-unconditional-support-for-russia-in-ukraine
  https://www.npr.org/2025/06/16/g-s1-71531/north-korea-soldiers-russia-ukraine-war-drones
  
  Did I or did I not add the tongue-in-cheek qualifier “accidentally” to licking boots to signify the benefit of the doubt of the people falling into this trap?
  What "trap"?? The "trap" of correctly refuting misinformation? How generous of you!
  Not so distant if we’re going to be fighting a proxy war against them.
  Oh, well that's very simple. Don't fight a proxy war against them. I think I may not have expressed my position properly: there are no foreign threats anywhere that are anywhere near as important and dangerous as the ones here at home.
  Let's do a quick quiz. Question 1: I can't afford health insurance. The people primarily responsible for me not having access to healthcare live in which city?
  A. Pyongyang
  B. Moscow
  C. Beijing
  D. Tehran
  E. Washington D.C.
  Question 2: Which country's government poses the greatest threat to my safety and has the greatest ability to imprison/kill/harm me, as an American?
  A. North Korea
  B. Russia
  C. China
  D. Iran
  E. US
  Now, would you kindly explain to me why I should rally behind the people who are most likely to harm me and who are the reason I don't have healthcare against people thousands of miles away?
  
  What the fuck are you on about, Jessie?
  The “trap” of correctly refuting misinformation? How generous of you!
  Listen, if you're going to be this disrespectfully disingenuous, I'd rather you stop right now because you're already getting into the realm of obnoxious and condescending.
  
  Saying that people are licking boots "accidentally" by calling out and refuting misinformation is not notably better than saying that they're licking boots intentionally. "I should be able to say whatever I want about this country, true or not, and if people push back, they're accidentally licking boots" doesn't become ok because it includes the qualifier "accidentally."
  If I've misinterpreted you, you're welcome to explain how or what you meant. Or to drop it in favor of my other points, which you seem to be evading.
  
  "I should be able to say whatever I want about this country, true or not, and if people push back, they're accidentally licking boots"
  Who is saying that?? 😅 If you in the process of clarifying something start overreaching in the wrong direction, you're giving them leeway they don't deserve. It's simple, dude. I've seen it happen with people denying and downplaying horrible shit. Just like you want people to not overstate their actions, I don't want people understating them either as I've seen some people do, on purpose (or not), or as I put it, "accidentally [... unless?]" That's the tongue-in-cheek part because, precisely, how do you accidentally do it? There might be intent behind it, we don't know. We are in the middle of an information trying to push people a certain way and these corners of the internet are quite happy with playing for Russia & friends.
  That's the whole reason I'm telling you that I agree with you and that we're fucking splitting hairs by coming at it from opposite sides.
  Loved the absurd tangent though, but I guess we need laser focus and surgical precision when it's my turn to answer, huh.
  
  This is like an antivaxxer trying to be generous by saying that maybe pro-vaccine people are only "accidentally falling into the trap" of supporting Bill Gates' demon army or whatever.
  I've already established that you included the person you responded to as being part of this group of North Korea defenders for simply refuting misinformation. Rather than saying that people like that "accidentally falling into a trap," how about considering the possibility that they're right and have good reason for saying what they do?
  Now you're even backpedaling, like "maybe" they're accidentally falling for a trap, maybe they're outright foreign agents, which we can tell because they had the audacity to refute misinformation. I ask again, "what fucking trap?"
  
  only “accidentally falling into the trap” of supporting Bill Gates
  It's like I say things and they don't even register. I'm so done with you trying to pull shit shit by arguing in bad faith and rehashing what was already said. I've been consistent in my answers and now you're doing some other shit. I can't with you Lemmings sometimes.
  If you need clarification, I probably already gave it and you took it some other way. Go have fun with someone else.
  
  I'm sorry people push back against propaganda on here, must be rough for you 😔
  
  “Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.” ― Jean-Paul Sartre
  
  Who is saying that?? 😅
  You are saying that, you dishonest little toad.

269 comments