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 appreciate you doing your part to fact check, but I invented that rule, and I always have the receipts. Don't come for the king.
Case in point, the thread in question was removed, but I was able to find the relevant comment through the search function. A comment from Unruffled, reading:
If the community rules don’t ban GenAI images then you can assume a) they are allowed, and b) complaining about them is not allowed.
You're free to ask Unruffled to clarify their stance or ask some other mod who might overrule them or whatever, but until you can show me a statement otherwise, I'm assuming that the rule is:
If the community rules don’t ban GenAI images then you can assume a) they are allowed, and b) complaining about them is not allowed.
Liberalism is the ideology of capitalism. Capitalism is right-wing. Leftism is defined by anti-capitalism.
In the UK, for example, the "Liberal Democrats" are right-leaning. It's primarily in the US that "liberal" and "leftist" are used interchangeably, because once there was no longer a substantial (self-indentifying) socialist presence to scaremonger about, the right started scaremongering about liberals by equating them to socialists, and the meaning stuck. But I reject that and stick by the original meanings, which are used internationally.
"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:
Immigration courts have always been kangaroo courts. For example, there's no right to an attorney, and young children have been made to defend themselves against threat of deportation. That's not due process by any stretch of the imagination.
To say "there was no accidental deportation of people there legally" is completely absurd. Are you suggesting that not a single immigration court ever made a single mistake?
The "disservice to everyone" is you trying to whitewash the system and pretending that courts that require 6 year olds to defend themselves with no council is somehow a legitimate, fair system, just because the orange man wasn't the one in charge of it.
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.
When centrists criticize leftists and refuse to endorse them:
Amazing that people in the same party would critize each other ain’t it? That’s called competition, having an opinion, not lining up in lockstep behind Daddy. Before MAGA that used to be the American Way. Try it sometime.
When leftists criticize centrists and refuse to endorse them:
For real, a "solidly red state" generally means like a 60/40 split. And that's the way people's politics are judged, by looking at how they vote between Democrats and Republicans. And it becomes self-reinforcing, because safe states are neglected by politicians on both sides, and turnout is depressed because people feel like the outcome is inevitable.
Not saying they're reachable, but I'll say they're certainly not reachable with run of the mill "centrist" dems, who they hate more than anything.
OBJECTION! @ Objection @lemmy.ml Posts 28Comments 3,210Joined 1 yr. ago 
Let's just review this conversation, shall we? What the other person said was:
So, that's two examples of egregious misinformation that they pushed back on. How did you respond?
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.