How can you tell me it is false at the same time you tell me there’s not a lot of information passing between the two? These statements are in contention. But, like, I wouldn’t even think they literally all have the same haircut. I would think there is a prevalence to have similar hairdos. Because nationalism is like that. You idolize the military, you get people trying to look like the military. It’s not rocket surgery.

This is a weird misinformation combat strategy, where you tell me something isn’t true that is for sure not true, and then point to something that might or might not be true and say that it is the same thing. Because they’re not. If anything, it makes me feel like the opposite. Heck, I can even say that someone eating rats isn’t particularly crazy when you make me think about it. I’ve seen some poor conditions, and eating squirrels and rabbits isn’t that different from eatings rats, and there are people that do that here in America. Like, is eating a rat even that bad? It feels kinda like shaming someone for trying to survive. And I didn’t even really care about the haircut thing! Omg!

I don’t have an issue with having an issue with all existing countries. Why would I? It doesn’t defend your point to say “oh so you hate when other people do it?” Yes! Obviously! I think military parades are bad, specifically because it glorifies violence and promotes a national identity around use of that violence to keep people insular. Like, if you dislike imperialism, you kinda should dislike nationalism, even when used in self-defense because it is a huge double-edged sword.

Real life is never so simple as to be either good or bad. Are things good in the country you live in?

Good and bad are comparators. Some places are better, some are worse. But the argument indicates that we should treat an unknown as better than a known, and that the red flags are just flags. I like the optimism, truly, but I would rather see evidence for it.

I think there is a big difference between eating rats and having the same haircut in terms of propaganda angles. Like, I could believe the second one because a strong national identity tied to looking a certain way feels very in line with traditionally militaristic and patriarchal countries, but trying to tie that to eating rats is moat and baileying. Anyone that believes the eating rats is a small minority and would be given skeptical looks, especially without proof.

But seeing you do that at the same time you tie North Korea to Cuba feels like that’s the point? You see why I am skeptical of your premise. You keep pointing at eating rats and imperialism like it shields you from the other issues you don’t address.

I appreciate that you defended the nationalistic part, but I don’t appreciate that you glossed over the patriarchal part, but I digress.

Nationalism is just a crutch to bring support to the ruling class of any country. Saying that it is good if the ruling class is good or even just has good intentions is… Not good? I shouldn’t have to explain how that kind of fervor can be coopted. Nationalism doesn’t just disappear when it’s no longer needed.

But, personally, as a US citizen, I don’t think anyone I know thinks of North Korea as a hellscape. Media rarely portrays them as one, although it comes up more in Korean media, which does have some proliferation here. In the news, it’s just about the weapon capabilities, and the military parades, the former I don’t really care about as much coming from a country with an arsenal capable of destroying the world many times over and occasionally little hesitancy to do so, and the latter I very much do. Same with Cuba. If anything, American media tries to convince us of all African and sometimes South American countries are hellscapes. Mostly, we just get told Cuba has old cars and is poor and stuff about Fidel Castro, and North Korea is also poor and very militaristic and nationalistic. But, like, that seems pretty accurate from your replies?

So, are things bad there or good there? Because if your argument is that Western sanctions make it bad to be there, then why not lobby to push for the end of sanctions instead?

But that doesn’t seem to be the case here. It feels like you are trying to have your cake and eat it. It is simultaneously a good place to be and suffering under sanctions, defectors are paid lots of money to exaggerate and live destitute lives to need that money.

Like, it feels like you are saying people like it there, which… Yeah, people generally like to be in places they’ve always been. But that doesn’t make it good there. There are people in the US that live in very poor conditions in cities and towns with access to poor water, poor education, poor nutrition, etc., and like it there. Does that mean it is actually good there instead? No, obviously. That is silly.

Like, I dunno, man. Any country that does military parades is immediately kind of a red flag for me. That gives me strong nationalistic and patriarchal vibes and is not a thing that makes me think unbiased.