• 1 Post
  • 33 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 13th, 2023

help-circle
  • Way to disengage with every point made and assume I am a warmonger.

    I did almost include a paragraph on the morality of the bombing of Pyongyang, but after some thought I realise it wasn’t even a decade after ww2 and area bombing cities was part of how America and its allies won that conflict.

    Would you say bombing Germany was necessary or justified to stop facism in Europe? Was the bombing of Japan necessary or justified to end Japanese subjugation of Asia?

    I’m not sure I have a consistent position on this, it feels like the bombing of Korea was excessive but the bombing of Germany was necessary, but I can’t find a good justification for that split.

    Either way I’m not particularly interested in defending the US’s conduct, but the original commenter presenting the invading country as being innocent and laying all the blame for the war at the feet of the US is gross.

    This isn’t even getting into the fact that NK has one of the worst human rights records in the world.




  • The standard penalty for starting a war is being in a state of war, during which your opponents will try to kill you. Until the war is over your opponents will keep trying to kill you.

    Its worth noting that armestice wasn’t reached until Stalin died and the new soviet leaders weren’t interested in prolonging the war, which suggests that the belligerents in the conflict were happy to continue it as Koreans continued to die in order to support their territorial and idiological designs.

    In my opinion the US shouldn’t have crossed the 38th parallel north, doing so brought china into the war and ended the possibility of a quick end to the war and fewer deaths, but that sin pales in comparison to starting the invasion in the first place.

    The real tragedy is the same as it ever is in wars, innocent civilians and young soldiers die in droves because someone in power wanted more land, more subjects, more resources more power and made the decision to take it at the cost of these lives.

    And let’s not pretend that if the ROK and the US didn’t fight there wouldn’t have been massacres of civilians, purges of intellectuals and “political dissidents” and forced migration.

    The community we are in is somewhat appropriate when you are advocating that “war is bad” so people shouldn’t fight back when they are invaded because people die or powerful nations shouldn’t militarily support victims of invasions because that “prolongs the war” during which yes; people die. I see enough of that from the various anti-ukraine/pro-russia shills, it’s nice to see that logic gets applied to other cases where a country with red in it’s flag tries to annex its neighbour too.


  • America and the USSR agreed to partition Korea along the 38th parallel after liberating it from imperial Japanese rule.

    Subsequent to that the Chinese communists agreed to arm and back north Korea in return for Korean support during China’s civil war.

    Later on North Korea launched an invasion of South Korea I feel like this is a very important point you somehow completely failed to mention. They then captured most of the Korean peninsula down to Busan.

    At this point the US (technically the UN but most forces were US) reinforced the ROK troops reclaimed the lost territory and invaded the north capturing Pyongyang.

    At this point China reinforced the north Koreans and recaptured Pyongyang the fighting then stalemated around the 38th parallel after years of fighting an armistice was agreed and the current borders were agreed.

    Your protratal of the US deciding on a whim to butcher the poor north Koreans then impose a separation on them would be laughable in how poorly it conveys events if you weren’t seeking to mis-atribute the cause of a war that killed 3 million people


  • As much as I dislike the fact that the “flagship” instance for lemmy is an echo chamber that bans for political wrong think, I still think Lemmy on average is a positive and it isn’t funded by ads or vcs so it should be proof against the most common avenues for enshittification.

    So I set up a recurring donation despite being someone that would 100% get banned by the people I’m donating to if I were to comment on their instance.

    Same way I can’t stand people using one negative within a larger political platform as an excuse to parrot anti-electoralism I feel like I shouldn’t use one unfortunate facet of the fediverse as an excuse not to donate towards its continued development.

    Support “better” rather than waiting for “perfect”


  • Just to add to your (excellent) comment; in the UK you can be prescribed medical marijuana but it has to be done by a consultant level doctor and a multi disciplinary trial. The most important disqualifying factor is any history of psychosis, if they see that on your medical records they will not write you a prescription.

    So I would a assume there is some published medical literature they are following which states cannabis exacerbates the symptoms of psychosis.





  • Israel’s war crimes do not excuse Hamas’ terrorist attacks, nor do Hamas’ terror attacks excuse Israel’s war crimes.

    Intentionally escalating the conflict and suppressing rival organisations then turning around and saying “we are the only counterbalance to Israel, you must deal with us” is also kinda gross.

    That said, it’s weird that they want the UK involved given the history of the conflict and the relatively paltry (and apparently declining?) level of arms exports.

    I think the EU also designated Hamas as a terrorist organisation and Germany is a big arms exporter so I would have expected them to focus on getting that designation repealed.



  • Yeah, this is what I meant by informed consumer, In thory if the consumers are okay with palm oil chocolate so long as it’s cheaper then that’s what the market will provide. If they don’t like it then it won’t sell.

    But if they don’t know the difference they will go for the cheaper one then conclude they don’t like chocolate as much as they used to and buy less so both the customer and the brands providing real chocolate lose out.

    The more insidious version of this are additives which actually taste better but with less obvious long term health detriments, e.g. packing everything with sugar and salt.

    Nutrition labelling helps ofc, but even then who has the time to check the stats of every product they buy?



  • To play devil’s advocate;

    The theory is that privately run enterprise is more efficient and is able to provide goods and services at lower price, the mechanism for this that most people don’t mention is that if there are many companies in competition the inefficient ones are out-competed and go bust.

    The issue with privatisation is that this efficiency requires A: several businesses competing to provide the service, B: an elastic demand curve and C: informed consumers.

    Ideally providing excellent service at a good price increases market share and poor service at high prices results in decreased market share.

    The problem with privatisation is that most of the privatised services were nationalised originally because they are not a good fit for one of the above reasons.

    E.g. medicine is difficult because if you break a leg you aren’t shopping around for hospitals you go to the nearest one, you can’t really just put it off and medicine is incredibly complex so being and informed consumer is difficult and the country needs sufficient coverage so hospitals going bust is unacceptable.

    The UK has chronic issues with energy prices (I seem to remember seeing the highest in Europe?), but we don’t see energy companies undercutting one another, so it’s hard to argue that they are actually in competition.

    The issue is that most privatised services wind up running as a defacto monopoly the same as the nationalised one, just as you mentioned now with a profit motive too which incentivises hollowing out the service via cost cutting.




  • “A Line in the Sand” by James Barr is a good book on the topic, it goes into how the rivalry between Britain and France wound up with them attempting to carvr up the middle east between them after the fall of the ottoman empire.

    War and destabilisation of the Arabian population was the outcome, but I think it is highly reductive to say it was the intent, for one that would imply some level of cooperation beteen the colonial powers against the native populations when they regarded each other as bitter enemies and didn’t really regard the people of the middle east at all.

    Every step taken by Britain and France was with the aim increase or secure their territory while undermining the other. A lot of these steps were training arming and funding of local military/gorillas/terrorists opposed to the other country, but usually these were inflaming and exploiting existing religious/ethnic/tribal tensions rather than manufacturing them from nothing or drafting into an officially military force, which has the unpleasant property that even after the colonial powers have departed, the trainings traditions and blood feuds continue.