-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Nearly 80% of South Koreans Say They Trust Kim Jong Un
- Thread starter Airing of Grievances
- Start date
This is a thread about South Korea. I have been consistently talking about the criticizing leveled against South Korea.
Despite your efforts, this thread is actually about Koreans from the two Koreas, my dude.
Trusting someone, liking someone, and thinking someone is a good person are three VERY different things.
America's criminal justice system is irredeemably horrific but this has to be one of the craziest posts I have ever seen on Era.
I said goddamn
Kanye is that you?
The people must be okay with it right?
Sure they can just step out and say: "Hey kim, we the population don't like your dictatorship and regime. Stop this okay!!"
----
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea
Government : Unitary one-party Juche state Songun policy (de jure) under a totalitarian dictatorship(de facto)
Seems like you might want to read and research more if you're going to make comparisons
I don't think the united states locks up infants and have them starve in work camps, no matter how messed up the for profit prison system is and I agree it's messed up and needed to be reformed yesterday.
The horror stories from defectors over the last two decades have been similar, if you do anything that challenges the regime not only you will be punished but they will punish three generations kids have been born inside of those work camps.
So comparing what is essentially concentration camps in North Korea with the prison system in the US is the mother of false equivalences, and don't get me wrong I am against for profit prisons but let's not say it's worse than people being worked to death with hardly any food in their bellies, that are tortured by guards in the most brutal fashion.
I mean must be a joke character, nobody can be so disillusioned and be serious.
I mean, you're not actually talking very much about South Korea at all looking at your posts as a whole.
But most of the criticisms here are about how the North Korean citizens are treated. So to say "If the population of the country is okay with how they deal with their own citizens" doesn't really make sense when what's being discussed is how the South Koreans feel about the treatment of North Koreans by the North Korean leader.
He isn't really wrong, though. A bit hyperbolic perhaps, especially in comparison to NK, but the pipeline most definitely exists, especially in rural schools. Black kids are treated like criminals for minor infractions, and the idea of being institutionalized is instilled within the authority of the staff itself, which passes on to the students. America is built on classism.
Genuinely though, these are two different issues entirely, despite how major each may be. I believe T'Challa Shakur is angry, as he or she should be, but this is a very different topic of discussion.
User Banned (3 Days): Inflammatory Derail
Im saying that Americans have no ground to stand on because they have yet to deal with issues such as Systemic Racism, The Prison industrial complex and reparations for Slavery and you just compared me to Kanye "Slavery Was a choice" West....
Im guessing a Blacks sound a like and look a like to you eh?
Have you been to a North Korean labour camp ?
See I can play this game too also I am pretty sure small children are not in federal prisons we are talkint ten years old or younger here.
"People" being the politicians in powerful countries doing the demanding? Then yes, you're right. I'm referring to people like the ones in this thread who are criticizing DPRK gulags while presumably living in the US. Also, whataboutism is just slang for the old tu quoque, which has been a favorite of dictators and their bootlickers throughout the 21st century, so I'm not sure how it's misused?
It's almost like it's a deliberate thread derail from someone with totally sincere motives as illustrated by the consistent logic and progression of their arguments.
See? Totally sincere.
I didn't say he was wrong about that so don't twist my words. I acknowledged that the CJS in America is vile. Believe me, I've seen that shit first hand - you don't have to tell me.
Go back and re-read his post. He's not simply saying that the CJS in America is really bad, he's saying that any American criticizing NK for its prison system is a hypocrite simply by virtue of being born in America. That is psychotic.
Americans are more scared of him than any South Koreans are
I thought this was a thread about Korea though.
I thought this was a thread about Korea though.
@ this post to every single dumb poster in this thread who is insisting they know better
This is absolutely irrelevant. I'm from a family of immigrants of multiple races from multiple countries so my history in this current country isn't very long, but it doesn't matter. The ability to criticize concentration camps, or criticize the support of people complicit with such acts, isn't dependent on where we live.
You know what I judge? I judge Canada and the United States when they turned away the MS St Louis, a boat carrying 900 Jewish refugees in 1939, which ultimately returned to Germany where a quarter of them were subsequently murdered in concentration camps. I judge the international community for not placing sanctions on the Ottoman Empire in response to the Armenian genocide in the 1910s, and their complete lack of care for pushing for any restitution to the surviving families. Borders shouldn't fucking matter. People are dying. I don't expect everyone on Earth to help or write in to their elected officials, gimme a break, I know everyone has other things to worry about, but I sure as hell judge anyone who trusts a foreign government that runs concentration camps, which is what this thread is about.
I believe they were frustrated and upset, and understandably so. Not that it matters now, I suppose.
Not trying to twist your words, apologies there. I believe both systems can be scrutinized, and the possibility of comparison isn't too far out of the natural response someone would have to a topic about a country's CJS, especially if they are passionate about the subject. Though its clear the discussion he was presenting was fairly hyperbolic, I would think calling that person psychotic is a bit much.
Serious threats to world order, in my opinion, in no particular order:
All of those things are perpetuated, at least in part, by states that have serious human rights violations on record. All of them. America is killing people with drones all over the world, Putin is stoking xenophobia at home while raiding the country like a personal fief, the whole Middle East is increasingly violent and volatile, oil companies kill dissidents and suppress science, rich bankers and investors are deliberately undermining financial regulations, Eastern European nationalists are playing up racial tension for political gain, right wing governments are using refugees as bogeymen, and North Korea is using the threat of nuclear weapons to bully neighbouring states.
All of those things are, obviously, deplorable. And all of them should be stopped. And stopping those things may be possible, but it may not entail the complete reform of the actors responsible for them.
I would like for the Syrian Civil War to end, even if Saudi Arabia and Iran don't become secular liberal states. I would like for Russia to be less corrupt and violent, even if they still have a dictator. I would like modern neoliberal capitalism to be regulated and controlled, even if its worse excesses aren't completely tamed.
It isn't just short sighted, it is actually immoral, to be against denuclearization of the Korean peninsula on the grounds that it doesn't come with a free side of DPRK liberalization. We can also work towards that, we obviously should also work towards that, but this condescending "no peace without reform" thing is just counterproductive.
- American imperialism
- Russian oligarchy / gangsterism / militarism
- Tensions in the Middle East along the Iran / Israel axis
- Climate disaster and approaching peak oil
- Instability of financial markets
- Growing European ethnonationalism
- Refugee crises
- North Korean nuclear posturing
All of those things are perpetuated, at least in part, by states that have serious human rights violations on record. All of them. America is killing people with drones all over the world, Putin is stoking xenophobia at home while raiding the country like a personal fief, the whole Middle East is increasingly violent and volatile, oil companies kill dissidents and suppress science, rich bankers and investors are deliberately undermining financial regulations, Eastern European nationalists are playing up racial tension for political gain, right wing governments are using refugees as bogeymen, and North Korea is using the threat of nuclear weapons to bully neighbouring states.
All of those things are, obviously, deplorable. And all of them should be stopped. And stopping those things may be possible, but it may not entail the complete reform of the actors responsible for them.
I would like for the Syrian Civil War to end, even if Saudi Arabia and Iran don't become secular liberal states. I would like for Russia to be less corrupt and violent, even if they still have a dictator. I would like modern neoliberal capitalism to be regulated and controlled, even if its worse excesses aren't completely tamed.
It isn't just short sighted, it is actually immoral, to be against denuclearization of the Korean peninsula on the grounds that it doesn't come with a free side of DPRK liberalization. We can also work towards that, we obviously should also work towards that, but this condescending "no peace without reform" thing is just counterproductive.
Saying any person who happened to be born in America can't criticize literal North Korean concentration camps is crazy, yes. It is delusional thinking.
I apologise, but when Kanye made that same statement, it took another black man to correct him and they did not sound or look the same ;).
Your argument regarding the political regime and population in North Korea had the same head and tail:
If population/person/race is okay with it, there must be no other way or problem with it right?
Or am I saying something totally different?
--
There is no head or tail from what I've seen with this back and forth discussion and only leads to thread derailment.
It's not about criticizing or not criticizing. It's about dismissing the value of peace and denuclearization because of the existence of those concentration camps. And ignoring the very real probability that peace is the first step towards ending the Kim regime's human rights abuses.
And see you're getting off base here and also twisting the meaning of my words. I was responding to a specific poster who said Americans are hypocrites for criticizing NK's prison system simply by virtue of being born in America. That's it - that's the statement I was responding to.
It was asking if they trust that he'll go though with the denuclearization pledge for peace. Idk how big the sample was though.
Again, I think you are undermining mental health by calling someone "crazy" for being frustrated, upset, and yes even hyperbolic. A lack of articulation does not make someone psychotic. I agree that NK is most definitely open to criticism, as is our country and its many institutions, but I don't think mass negativity towards someone expressing those concerns was really warranted.
Who has said what you're implying? I genuinely might have missed it, but I didn't see anyone saying denuclearization is bad or inconsequential.
Didn't NK's nuclear facility literally get demolished?
With China pulling back in terms of support, I don't see why that's a surprising stance to take.
This is really difficult for me to understand. Why can't we judge the dictator or what he has done?
And what does having a closer understanding have to do with having right to judge anything? People who have a deep understanding or experiences can be biased to the point of not being able to see the situation rationally. They cannot be partial or fair because they are emotionally biased. That is why third party people are often brought in to try and make things more fair in general.
That's not to say that experiences don't have merit, but I do not see how ones own experiences put someone in front of the line of anything. Experiences does not equal being right. Many people with experiences make the wrong choices or don't process information in a way that is conducive to anything substantial.
Denuclearization is good, but I don't understand why there were provisions for checking nuclear sites and none for checking concentration camps. The Korean War has barely killed anyone (if anyone at all, as far as I know) since 1953, but who knows how many thousands have been killed within their own country. It's hard to care about a peace for a war with no death toll, and I don't understand why other countries are giving up so much to pursue that peace. I don't see how the international community will be in a better position to negotiate the improvement of NK's domestic situation - as far as I can tell, they'll only have less sway over North Korea after this, because they'll have less to offer them than before.
But the particulars of that isn't directly relevant to the topic, which is...how the hell can so many people trust a government that actively runs gulags?
Some are only implying it, but cervanky at least is outright saying it.
I'm outright stating that denuclearization is a response to an existential threat that has the potential to kill millions or billions but practically speaking kills no one because of mutually assured destruction, while concentration camps have and continue to kill thousands. I personally do care more about the present-day threat, since the 20th century is filled with examples of gulags and genocide but zero examples of nuclear war between nuclear states.
Denuclearization is a worthwhile goal but I do care less about it than the closing of concentration camps. I know they aren't mutually exclusive but it's obvious what South Koreans care more about, since they are placing trust in a government that's promising to put away the nukes, while I think any reasonable person should maybe still reserve some suspicion because that government also happens to be running concentration camps.
If your neighbour had a nuke and also a fenced area where they kidnapped local people and executed them and their families, would you start to trust them after they gave up the nuke?
True enough. And I'd count myself as one of the optimistic ones who thinks Kim might actually be turning over a new leaf.
Still, it's tough to trust a man who executed his Uncle and every man, woman and child that shared his blood.
Did you just say the 20th century did not have any nuclear warfare in it
Yep and alot of the tunnels have collapsed at Punggye-ri.
Yeah, It should be the most obvious stance to have.
They said war between nuclear states.
Read again please.
"zero examples of nuclear war between nuclear states."
"between nuclear states"
Correct me if I'm wrong but mutually assured destruction didn't apply in 1945, holy shit. I don't think I'm saying anything outrageous here.
I have little faith that you're correctly assessing and interpreting my arguments by questioning my desire for peace if you misread a straightforward statement like this.
Last edited:
I feel like trust is a weird way to have phrased it. It suggests a faith in character that I'm not sure it's possible to extend toward Kim without being incredibly naive. Do I believe he is likely to follow through because he believes it will be to his own personal benefit? Sure. Does that mean I trust the man in any way, shape, or form? Dear god, no.
I actually do wonder if any of this was somewhat lost in the process of translation and if the question as originally asked implies any level of belief in a person's intentions or morality that seems to come along with "trust."
Dude you seem smart or at least not dumb. Use critical thinking. Saying that Kim and NK are not trustworthy does not mean people are against peace or denuclearization. It means the history of NK signing deals and treaties and then later backing out is fresh in some people's mind and that there should be a healthy level of skepticism until NK's end of the bargain is not only met but sustained, which frankly will take years to see.
This "they're against peace" talking point is stupid. People will be skeptical of this regime for years and rightfully so.
I swear my mental condition is actually 50 times worse than I thought it was and I'm hallucinating all of this crazy stuff that's going on around the world.
Uh, I'm implying that Kim Jong-Un is comfortable with de-nuclearization so long as he gets to keep other aspects of his regime relatively untouched/unmonitored. My comment has nothing to do with minimizing the impact of said de-nuclearization/formal termination of war with South Korea. Clearly these things happen in steps.
Uh, one state dropped two nuclear bombs on another state, how is that not nuclear war between states
Oh, I see, between nuclear states. Like both countries having nuclear bombs. Uh, okay. You got me, I guess.
You're literally, openly saying that denuclearization is bad because it lets NK off the hook for their gulags