☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆

  • 5.2K Posts
  • 8.21K Comments
Joined 6 years ago
Cake day: January 18th, 2020
  • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOPtoMemes@lemmy.ml•The News
    3·
    1 hour ago

    That’s not what I’m saying at all. The first step to my perspective is to consider the framing they’re using and to think why they want to push a particular narrative. Nowhere did I say anything about assuming they’re being truthful. Although, in most cases western media uses more sophisticated techniques for distorting information than outright lying. It will be omission of facts, framing, and so on. This is an excellent book dissecting how US propaganda actually works. https://november8ph.ca/psychological-warfare-in-the-strategy-of-imperialism-v-l-artemov/

    And you should also widen your media diet to include non western sources. These will have different biases and framings which you can contrast with what western media reports.

  • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOPtoMemes@lemmy.ml•The News
    5·
    2 hours ago

    If we discarded every source that had a liberal or capitalist slant, we would effectively have to stop reading 99% of Western media, and we’d be blinding ourselves to the narrative of the ruling class. We are adults with functioning brains and the capacity for critical analysis. We should be able to read a piece of liberal slop, identify the ideological framing, strip it away, and analyze the material conditions they are reporting on or trying to obscure.

    You need to read the Wall Street Journal because it is the mouthpiece of the ruling class that tells you exactly what capital is thinking, what they are afraid of, and how they are strategizing to protect their interests. You cannot effectively dismantle an argument if you refuse to understand its internal structure and logic.

    Running away from information because it doesn’t align with their worldview is what liberals do when they retreat into their MSNBC bubbles. We should be secure enough in our own position to read sources we abhor, understand them, and approach their claims from a position of knowledge. Ruthless criticism of all that exists includes reading sources like the wsj.

  • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mltoMemes@lemmy.ml•One of these is a cancer that needs to be cut out, the other is the DPRK
    7·
    6 hours ago

    That’s not hyperbole by the way, the military in the south is literally under US command. In September 1945, the US Army Military Government in Korea (USAMGIK) took over the southern half of the peninsula. It ruled for three full years, outlawed local people’s committees, and kept using the old Japanese colonial bureaucracy. That is a textbook military occupation. When the Korean War broke out in 1950, the US provided 90 percent of all combat forces and placed the South Korean military under the operational control of an American general. There weren’t even any elections under the occupation until the late 80s. It was a literal dictatorship.

    That control has never truly gone away. Today, South Korea is under de facto US military occupation. The US runs Camp Humphreys, the largest overseas US base on the planet, with its own postal service and currency. More importantly, the US controlled Combined Forces Command holds wartime operational control over the entire South Korean military. If fighting resumes, Seoul’s army does not answer to Seoul, but to a four star American general. And a US dominated UN Command still publicly dictates what South Korea’s parliament can legislate near the DMZ.

    Under the current Combined Forces Command structure, if war breaks out tomorrow, every South Korean soldier would automatically answer to an American commander without Seoul’s consent. It is a 70‑year‑old military subordination that the US has repeatedly delayed transferring. As of May 2026, the US insists on “conditions‑based” transfer and opposes a “politically convenient” timeline. South Korea’s president himself is pushing back against this delay. A foreign general holding final command over a sovereign nation’s military in wartime is, by any definition, continuing military occupation.