Remember, the brutal theocratic puppet of foreign imperialists which is widely despised by the people it occupies is National Liberation, Actually, as long as it's against Bad Camp!
Nah I'm gonna stick with my feminist internationalism. It's a bad idea to invade again, but the taliban is bad and I support what the Afghans want from Afghanistan with an emphasis on any freedom and equality
Yeah. There's a vast array of opinions between the unacceptable "We should invade again" and the unacceptable "The Taliban is Necessary, Actually" that are actually conscionable.
Person with Rainbow Dash profile pic supports racist theocracy.
Fitting, heh...
tankies are borderline right wing trolls, they don't actually give a shit about queer people
@PugJesus@lemmy.world What subreddit is this from?
The original post on Reddit doesn't mention, and the Reddit tankiejerk sub doesn't allow other subreddits to be mentioned in the comments, apparently?
Oh yeah, I'm sure the afghan girls not being allowed to go to school or doing anything anymore are super happy now
How many of you folks are star trek fans?
What's your thoughts on the prime directive?
What's your thoughts on the federations alliance with klingons.
Why (besides the fact is fictional media) is that different from this?
Edit: guess y'all don't like star trek.
Maybe because afghans arent a fucking alien race unaware of the existence of other peoples
Interesting that that's how you interpret the prime directive. Uncontacted peoples are a case in which the prime directive would apply, but the prime directive applies also to contacted peoples.
Please reform your argument so that it makes sense as a response to what I said.
Sidenote: if you don't understand the prime directive and don't understand the question I am asking then you can also just not respond. You don't need to engage in an argument built on a premise that you don't know enough about to work within. That's okay. It doesn't make your argument less valid, just makes you unsuited for this specific conversation.
The interesting thing about a question is that while it asking you to think about the context of a fictional policy in a fictional world of aliens, the show was written by humans, for humans, about humans. If you also cannot wrap your head around that one then that is okay. You can choose not to engage with the question.
Your example of a national equivalent of a "Prime Directive" ignores the difference between global politics and extraterrestrial development. Global politics based around isolation inevitably falls due to an inability to deal with some crisis that comes along. They will be a source of short term refugees and long term trade opportunities as whatever nation rebuilds seeks contact with its neighbors.
A population that has no chance of leaving the planet will have to deal with the crisis or perish. Star Trek never talks about the planets that they watch fall into chaos or extinction. It also shows the
Isolationist policies never work. It always turns inward and aggressive, like feudal Japan or post-Tito Albania. Or North Korea now. All other nations will have to deal with the remains of a fallen country so it makes sense to get ahead of the problem and inject some responsibility.
Prime directive does not necessarily mean isolation, either imposed on the self or on the other (ignoring pre space civilizations, we ain't arguing about uncontacted tribal jungle folk are we?) you are making assumptions of my argument that I did not make and ran with that.
It's interesting that everyone who has replied to me about this wants to talk about the prime directive in relation to less advanced society when the subject at hand is Afghanistan. Despite me using Klingons, a peer to the federation, in my example.
Out of curiosity, why did you choose to ignore the framing I laid out and instead chose to focus on the concept of isolation and uncontacted peoples with relation to the prime directive?
Prime Directive only applies for first contact. For Earth today it means leaving uncontacted tribes alone.
The Federation alliance with the Klingon empire is against strong external enemies of both like the Romulans. Like the alliance during WW2 with the Soviet Union, it won’t last long. The Klingon empire can change direction radically under a new emperor and is prone to civil wars.
Prime directive does not just apply to first contact. The easiest example would be the entire show DS9 but also just the first episode where Picard is giving orders to sisko.
PICARD: <........ >I've come to know the Bajorans. I'm a strong proponents for their entry into the Federation.
SISKO: Is it going to happen?
PICARD: Not easily. The ruling parties are at each others throats. Factions that were united against the Cardassians have resumed old conflicts.
SISKO: Sounds like they're not ready.
PICARD: Your job is to do everything short of violating the Prime Directive to make sure that they are. <.......>
Here we can clearly see the prime directive being referenced in regards to a space age civilization that already has contact and awareness of the galaxy at large and who funnily enough consists of a bunch of religious terrorists. Honestly bajor was a better example but the Klingons are more disagreeable from a moral standpoint. What with their racism and misogyny