This newspaper has a hard on for downplaying north Korean aggression.

Such a fucking chickenhawk you are. “Aw, these authors want to BUST MASSIVE LOADS all over KOREAN STRONGMEN. They want to be TOPPED by KIM JONG UN!” literally just because they want the peaceful reunification of their nation instead of a war for the US to have effective control of a land border with China.

This author makes every possible attempt to downplay North Korean aggression, blaming it on SK or the US every time.

From what you share I see quoting activists and trying to defuse stories that seem very improbable because there is a long history of SK and US media just making shit up about NK and it being gobbled up uncritically. But please, tell me about unicorns and state-mandated haircuts, it’ll be a good use of both our time. The kids eat the rats and the rats eat the kids.

Edit: Oh, but to answer the main question I missed:

It’s gotten to the point where Korean intelligence officials are telling reporters to hold off on relaying reports about North Korean troops from Ukrainian officials until they receive third-party confirmation

Because it’s talking about intelligence officials talking directly to reporters, my feeling is that it’s an anonymous source, though it should definitely have made this clear.

That would be irrelevant because it’s not SK’s “free press,” it’s their government agents issuing this warning.

Seoul is right in the headline.

And in the article (right at the top, repeatedly) it’s not SK press, it’s SK intelligence agents saying this. The headline wouldn’t say “Seoul” and then have it be a private entity; “Seoul” is a metonym for the SK government. People only conflate individual institutions with the government when it’s China and some Chinese business does something stupid but not illegal.

Bernie is a bastard, but I think it’s backwards thinking to blame voters rather than candidates. In a nominal democracy, it’s the job of the candidates to appeal to people to get votes. If there is any merit to this idea, we must conclude that the failure was the Harris campaign for not generating the confidence needed to vote for her – which is a very expected outcome when you’re running as reactionary a campaign as she did, calling the wall a “good idea” and so on.

In most lemmy instances, the default feed is a mix of that instance’s and popular threads from other instances. Participating in such a thread that you find spontaneously is therefore not anything resembling “brigading,” even if other people on your instance also see it spontaneously and participate.

and very nearly succeeded

How can you say this? Do you think that there’s some artifact in the Capitol that grants the power of Legitimate Governance? Do you think a dipshit protest-turned-walking-tour where the cops only saw fit to fire on like one person and only a couple of cops were killed by the rioters is enough to reverse an election in the country that is the global superpower? The country that overthrows governments abroad with much greater violence every few years?

Is it possible that a couple of politicians would have been beaten to death? Yeah, in a somewhat different world, but the rioters did not begin to approach doing anything in the same dimension as a “successful coup”. There was no connection between what they did and what a group would need to do to take over the country, and imagining there was even anything in the Capitol that could be used for a bit of leverage (like if some pols got caught), that still wouldn’t be a coup and the feds would send SWAT in to blow some brains out.

It’s just classic American aggrievement politics, the hogs put on a show for you so now it’s “1/6” like it’s a new 9/11 combined with the fucking burning of the White House in 1814. It was never going to amount to anything on the magnitude that you’re asserting, or even several orders of magnitude below it. There is no conflict in which like 6 people die (multiple from rank stupidity) that can connect even notionally to the outcome of overthrowing the most powerful country in the world!

Well, unless it’s like a judicial coup or some other situation where people are exercising their political power directly, to be fair. But it’s not like Trump was doing the smarter thing and using executive orders to lay the ground for toppling the government, and even then there are so many barriers he’d need to get over that he didn’t even have the cognitive capacity back then to grapple with.

Most of the camps were liberated by the Red Army. I don’t see why you feel the need to say “Evil Nazis” unless it is to mock the idea of Nazis being very evil.

The Soviets did actually have a plan to move the Jewish refugees who were refused homes abroad into a designated Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, but the plan fell through for reasons that I don’t really understand. Maybe just because the land they chose wasn’t good or there was just more momentum behind the project to colonize Palestine (which the USSR supported at a critical juncture before going back to opposing for some reason).

In the modern day, I hate the idea of injecting such a reactionary population of millions into a country that has a more lively left than most (though yes, the left has never controlled the Federation and has its own issues besides) when the Israelis could either carve out a part of Germany for themselves or be put in some of the other reactionary shitholes in Europe like England and Italy, where they probably wouldn’t make the politics any worse than they already are.

The highly racial framing you are using is one that even Hamas rejects. Palestine is an Arab country in the sense that it’s mostly Arab, it is not Arab in the sense of being an ethnostate like Israel. Likewise, the point of conflict here is not that the Israelis are Jews, but that they are former colonizers, aside from the second-class citizen Arab (etc.) Israelis. Jews do alright in Palestine right now.

Even if it just stopped there, the fact that there would be some hate crimes as blowback from the genocide committed by Israel is a much smaller and more manageable problem than having a rogue state launching hellfire missiles indiscriminately at cities.

But I think there are other factors to consider, first among them being that people of Palestine have the much more important jobs of a) reconstruction and b) the extensive trials that will be required, along with their associated fact-finding missions. There’s a lot of shit to do and most of it is for the direct benefit of Palestinians, plus any spite they have can be satisfied by the just convictions of countless Israeli criminals. It’s not like they are some racist savages who won’t be satisfied until the last Jew has been bled dry, contrary to their hasbara depiction. Overwhelmingly, what they want is to live in peace, because so many of them have spent their whole lives living under violence.

So nothing about this seems like it would be an equivalent problem to leveling one of the most densely populated cities in the world, plus all the other shit that is going on. It is, in function, just a refusal to allow any blowback Israelis caused to actually hit them, no matter how many Arabs get slaughtered in the meantime.

I do agree with the other commenter that it would be good for some NATO-sphere country or countries to set aside land and migrate out those non-criminal Israelis who want to leave, but that’s almost certainly not ever going to happen. I acknowledge that it’s possible, but the use of Israelis to these states is as a ranks of a militarist state terrorizing its neighbors. What use would Israelis be to the imperial project in Alberta, Canada?

The donors – the domestic owning class – were always a self-aligned ingroup, and it’s been that way since before the country was founded. The fact that they have gotten complacent in just green-washing and rainbow-washing their marketing instead of allowing actual concessions to be made is not really a change in their ideology so much as their strategy. They still have the same goals that they’ve always had, it’s just that the tiny little check on their power that the left and the working class more broadly represented has been systematically dismantled.

It’s not a matter of what the owning class “believes” as though these conditions are a highly subjective thing, because ingroups are not just a quirk of psychology or social perspective, they can be and often are interest groups, people who share a common material interest. The owners are correct that it benefits them broadly to crush the power of labor so they can maximize profits, just like they know it benefits them broadly to do other things like scapegoat minorities, use drug policy as a pretext for mass-incarceration, and so on.

Third parties are never even mentioned in the article. Is all left criticism of Harris “vote-third-party slop”?

What a coincidence!

This is one of those things where we all know what it means but you have deniability if someone calls you out on it. Just say what you mean instead of resorting to dogwhistling.

That polling was mentioned immediately in the article, but it then points to the wealth of issues where the headline is true.

Well, I would argue that that is like 95% where their votes are coming from, basically “This is still the ‘left’ option, I guess,” rather than believing in any sort of positive vision on the part of the Democratic Party (it doesn’t have one).

However, politics isn’t just a 1-dimensional spectrum where things neatly slot into whatever is closest. The fact that they are lurching rightward, the apparent contempt they have for the left, the lack of any meaningful similarity between what a left-wing person wants and what the Democrats will even acknowledge is real (like action on the genocide in Palestine), means that what you are taking as similarity is in many cases difference. Just saying “Fuck you, vote for me because the other guy is worse” is really not a good strategy for getting votes unless you are holding getting votes as secondary to pandering to donors.

Like, do you think a new Republican candidate could just be blatantly pro-choice and not lose one or two dedicated blocs of the Republican voting base, just because “he’s still the farthest right”? Of course not, democracy doesn’t work that way. If you don’t support people on the issues they care about most, a good number of them will tell you to go to hell while the others roll over as always.

Dissolving Israel doesn’t mean kicking every Jewish person out. There are Jewish people in Palestine already, and the point is to make a multiethnic state, not replace one ethnostate with another. Many Israelis would definitely leave for a number of reasons, very much like how a meaningful part of the white population fled South Africa in the wake of Apartheid being defeated, but there are houses where there are no other claimants and, God forbid, the remaining former Israelis can also just buy or rent homes instead of stealing them. There would be a big population shift, but there is absolutely no need to build a 10-million-person-ark.

The distinction being drawn is that popular sentiments aren’t going rightwards like the parties are.

What do you suppose is allowing the remaining threads to hold on?

Appropriately apocalyptic for the liberal view on these elections, but the problem, also appropriate for the liberal view on these elections, is that you are taking the Other to be a complete dipshit.

If you’re in a situation that isn’t the literal end of the world, bluffing has a serious danger associated with it because it informs all circumstances subsequent to the bluff if it gets called. From that point on, people know that your threats are not to be taken seriously, and you have robbed yourself of whatever power you had. You become a “boy who cried wolf” with respect to the actions you will take.

Furthermore, this time in all situations, it’s somewhere between difficult and impossible to stake such a widespread plan of action on everyone at all times maintaining a lie. How do you agitate for such a thing? You can’t speak of it in the open. How do you vet candidates? Someone might be an asset (and liberals usually believe spaces both online and offline are crawling with assets for other states) or even just someone who thinks you plan is bullshit and will decide to talk about it afterwards. Basically, your plan works in the same realm of imagination where wars would stop if all of the soldiers on both sides just laid down their arms. That is to say, if you could just cast a spell and make people act that way, sure, but that’s not how politics works.

Lastly, it’s important to remember we are talking about threats, so “If we have nukes, we should just use them!” is a complete non sequitur. That’s not a threat, that’s just an attack. Incidentally, while there is a good argument to be made that if you get nuked, you should just take the L if you think your barrage might tip the scales into the world ending, such an idea definitionally does not work as the dominant ideology because at that point MAD does not protect your country anymore and there’s really no point in you having nukes when you’re just surrendering to death anyway. If you’re an individual operator of a nuclear silo or something and you refuse to participate in ending the world, good for you, but again that’s something that you can’t organize with because it’s a conspiracy of a similar style to what I outlined before, so you aren’t going to succeed in helping very much unless you’re on the vanguard and it might be a false positive that an enemy nuke was launched at all (this happened at least once with the USSR, during the Cuban Missile Crisis). In that extremely specific situation where mass action is impossible and only a tiny fraction of a fraction of the population ever gets close to being in the conditions where such an incident has even a slim possibility of occuring: Yes, there it works well.

A threat that you refuse to make good on is the same as doing nothing. I have no interest in telling someone who to vote for, but your proposed strategy is ridiculous.

Words can have different colloquial meanings. There is a really crass meaning of liberal that would identify Marx as a liberal, yes, and this is the most popular one in America, but there’s another colloquial meaning (more popular in other anglophone countries, but gaining traction in America) where liberals are basically centrists (in capitalist societies) who might pretend to be progressive but are ultimately moderates to their bones. This came from the proclivities of “Liberal” parties, along with centrists understandably claiming the name of whatever the ruling ideology is, and here it is of course liberalism.

Among leftist circles, “liberal” is sort of an unmarked term for the moderate definition and the Lockean definition both, like how “guys” can refer to both a group of males and a group of mixed gender, despite “gals” only referring specifically to a group of females (I’m using those terms because they apply to children also, not just men/women).

So the comment is saying, in translation: “Democrat aligned people will still blame socialists (etc.) like their Democrat ideological cult wants them to.” Does that make sense?

Is it a statement on how pets are animals turned into agency-less commodities, just like meat?

Is it really that hard to imagine that someone who loves you was hoping to see you happy instead of as a moldering corpse?