No Stupid Questions
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
view the rest of the comments
Why do .ml's get so triggered with this topic? And y'all invariably paint NK as these absolute saints when we know what totalitarian regimes do and have done throughout the ages.
Your reply doesn't really follow the conversation. This is tangential to the main thread. We're talking about how we present and defend information as a meta commentary on these threads, and not how the egging on of an invasion of a totalitarian country upsets some folks.
Also, did you just make an account to participate in this thread? Your account is brand spankin'.
This you?
It takes huge balls to go around calling people stupid only to miss the entire point yourself. Terrible troll, honestly.
When you recognize the amount of bullshit propoganda that is consumed daily and realize how false it all is it's very easy to switch to "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" mode.
Additionally it's harder to break others (and oneself) out of the propoganda soup without an extremely sharp distinction between the lies being spoonfed and the material reality. The material reality often ends up getting distorted as a result and the cycle continues.
I fully support the idea that we have a problem with bias in the news and people profiting from scandals, and we also don't need to downplay what the government does. We can push back against misinformation without accidentally bootlicking.
Can you? You don't' seem to be able to.
It depends entirely on how you define "accidentally bootlicking" because I think OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml has done an excellent job of calling out how you have been making that distinction.
Taking a step back and decontextualizing how do you think one should make that distinction?
I'm sorry, but Objection has taken the wrong idea and run with it. If you think they're making a great point, I'd suggest you reread with what I've said in mind. I do own that I'm a little hasty to judge .ml accounts from experience, but that's about it. The rest is Objection assuming things with extra dressing to frame the conversation.
Tbh, I don't even know what the fuck they're arguing about now, and I can't be bothered. Seriously, go take a look a that word salad and the embedded quiz of them just being an extra little argumentative gremlin.
Probably shouldn't have mentioned my thoughts on that thread, I had hoped to provide some perspective on where I was coming from but probably just confused things for everyone. That's my bad, back to the relevant point:
How do you think one should make that distinction?
As it comes up? Idk. What, am I supposed to give a monolithic answer now for speaking broadly? I've had .ml accounts actively deny the severity of historical events in their efforts to whitewash history. "Oh, it wasn't that bad." Oh, really? Sounds a bit sus.
This is not a gotcha just because you're listening to the other fool.
Yes, because you were perfectly happy/capable of giving one before:
Which while it's good in theory it appears the phrase "accidentally bootlicking" allows for others, including a certain 'argumentative gremlin', to perceive that as meaning "so long as it doesn't contradict my existing worldview".
Having a stronger/more rigorous definition would help you with communicating your ideas, allow you to self-check for dissonances and help me understand if there's anything of actual substance here.
So what's your definition?
That's a guiding principle at best, bud.
Cut the sass and the condescending tone.
And that is not my problem if I've already clarified but you two are too hung up on details rather than substance and running off on ridiculous tangents. You can take it or leave it and I don't care either way. I'm done with this pedantic argument over definitions over minutia that I really dgaf about.
So all this bull aside, and I'll reiterate to cover my bases, my overarching point is: Don't underplay a regime and make them seem more reasonable than they are by whitewashing history, whether intentionally or not. Sorry if you need further clarification, but I find that self-evident.
Have a good one.
That's a better definition!
But also don't exaggerate a "regime"^1^ to make them seem more extreme than they are by whitewashing, decontextualizing, fabricating, using loaded language[1], etc.
Propoganda often works explicitly via selectively presenting facts to encourage a particular synthesis or perception. What your are calling "details" and "minutia" are attempts to try and push back against some of that selectivity bias.
That's the same definition I've been using all along. You just wanted it to be written a certain way because you listened to the other guy and got some ideas. That's been literally my entire point and I think I've said it three different ways.
Literally the counterpoint to what I was replying to. See? You guys are rehashing everything that has been said all along. You two think I have this other worldview different than yours or something, and you're trying to fish me out to be the bad guy without realizing we're talking about the same damn thing from different angles, yet agree on the core principle. Is that clear now? Am I free to go?
...to not get bogged down in useless definitions that turn out to rehash everything that has been said already? Can we not be practical about it? Must it be a conspiracy? If you'd listened the first time, we wouldn't be here still.
Oh stop. Just come out and admit you just go off what ever your pre-existing beliefs were anyway; you've not convincing anyone otherwise.
Wooow. Amazing answer. Lol
Let's just review this conversation, shall we? What the other person said was:
So, that's two examples of egregious misinformation that they pushed back on. How did you respond?
The reason we """bootlick""" and """treat them as absolute saints""" is that you chatacterize any attempt to push back on blatant misinformation as """bootlicking.""" So no, it is impossible push back on misinformation without "bootlocking," because, by your standards, anything short of uncritically accepting every bad thing said about a US rival (that is, anything short of actual bootlicking towards the US) counts as "bootlicking."
If I'm wrong, then show me what in their comment led you to conclude that they were bootlicking, aside from refuting misinformation.
I think you're connecting two things in my mind that were completely separate, and are using that as a springboard to jump to conclusions about my supposed standards based on one flawed premise, then about me uncritically accepting things, and also that I'm explicitly against US enemies. Brother, I'm not even American. Can I not talk about a pitfall that I often see with people defending NK, as an "inb4" if you will? Because I hope you reread the sentence that way.
If anything, my only direct comment about the person I'm replying to was the first question: Why so eager to jump in like that about a known violator of human rights that has voiced unconditional support for Russia, a country actively picking a fight with the entire West side of the world? A tyrannic, totalitarian regime is everybody's enemy as far as I'm concerned.
But sure, maybe I'm reading the other person wrong too, and I'm unnecessarily assigning blame because of my previous experience with this exact same topic with other .ml accounts behaving that way and swarming the person commenting.
The problem is that even if there are people like that, the criticism gets directed at people with much milder takes. And in this case, you replied to someone with .ml saying "why do .ml's..." and "y'all..." You were clearly including them, even though all they'd done was to identify some things that are objectively misinformation.
Because of... the truth? Does being a "known violator of human rights" make it ok for people to spread lies? Does it make someone a bad person to refute things that are objectively false? At that point, how could we even determine if anything said about them is true, if their critics are happy to lie, and to attack anyone who calls out lies?
I don't care who you're talking about, whether it's North Korea, Iran, Trump, fucking, Nazi Germany, whatever, if people say false things about them, then I'm going to correct those falsehoods. There's this whole social disease that correcting misinformation about something inherently means you support it. If someone says "In North Korea, they kill you for having the wrong haircut" and you say, "No, they don't," then congratulations, you are now "defending North Korea," you are now a "North Korea apologist," or, as some would say, a "tankie." And then you ask why there's so many "North Korea apologists."
Some of us value truth and integrity more than we value bashing whoever the news tells us to hate. And because we have the audacity to interrupt the whole Orwellian "Five Minutes Hate" thing, that makes us traitors if not foreign agents or bots.
If North Korea is my "enemy," it's certainly a very small and distant one that's not really worth messing with. Speaking as an American, my biggest existential threats are all domestic, like the rise of fascism and exploitation by the rich. I can see no reason why I would support my domestic enemies meddling in the affairs of other countries for their own benefit, and if I don't support my government taking hostile action towards North Korea, then there's pretty much fuck-all I could do about it in any case, is there? So what difference does it even make what anybody's stance is on it, what's the big deal if some people take it too far? The only relevant question with North Korea is "Should our government fuck with them or not" and the answer is obviously "not."
I think I very much addressed that in two different points to be rehashing this.
You're saying the same thing I've expressed but from a different angle. We're almost down to splitting hairs, except that you're taking my words to an extreme. Did I or did I not add the tongue-in-cheek qualifier "accidentally" to licking boots to signify the benefit of the doubt of the people falling into this trap?
Not so distant if we're going to be fighting a proxy war against them. If you think they're a remote country not participating in world affairs, then I've got recent news for you.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/7/12/north-koreas-kim-voices-unconditional-support-for-russia-in-ukraine
https://www.npr.org/2025/06/16/g-s1-71531/north-korea-soldiers-russia-ukraine-war-drones
What "trap"?? The "trap" of correctly refuting misinformation? How generous of you!
Oh, well that's very simple. Don't fight a proxy war against them. I think I may not have expressed my position properly: there are no foreign threats anywhere that are anywhere near as important and dangerous as the ones here at home.
Let's do a quick quiz. Question 1: I can't afford health insurance. The people primarily responsible for me not having access to healthcare live in which city?
Question 2: Which country's government poses the greatest threat to my safety and has the greatest ability to imprison/kill/harm me, as an American?
Now, would you kindly explain to me why I should rally behind the people who are most likely to harm me and who are the reason I don't have healthcare against people thousands of miles away?
What the fuck are you on about, Jessie?
Listen, if you're going to be this disrespectfully disingenuous, I'd rather you stop right now because you're already getting into the realm of obnoxious and condescending.
Saying that people are licking boots "accidentally" by calling out and refuting misinformation is not notably better than saying that they're licking boots intentionally. "I should be able to say whatever I want about this country, true or not, and if people push back, they're accidentally licking boots" doesn't become ok because it includes the qualifier "accidentally."
If I've misinterpreted you, you're welcome to explain how or what you meant. Or to drop it in favor of my other points, which you seem to be evading.
Who is saying that?? 😅 If you in the process of clarifying something start overreaching in the wrong direction, you're giving them leeway they don't deserve. It's simple, dude. I've seen it happen with people denying and downplaying horrible shit. Just like you want people to not overstate their actions, I don't want people understating them either as I've seen some people do, on purpose (or not), or as I put it, "accidentally [... unless?]" That's the tongue-in-cheek part because, precisely, how do you accidentally do it? There might be intent behind it, we don't know. We are in the middle of an information trying to push people a certain way and these corners of the internet are quite happy with playing for Russia & friends.
That's the whole reason I'm telling you that I agree with you and that we're fucking splitting hairs by coming at it from opposite sides.
Loved the absurd tangent though, but I guess we need laser focus and surgical precision when it's my turn to answer, huh.
This is like an antivaxxer trying to be generous by saying that maybe pro-vaccine people are only "accidentally falling into the trap" of supporting Bill Gates' demon army or whatever.
I've already established that you included the person you responded to as being part of this group of North Korea defenders for simply refuting misinformation. Rather than saying that people like that "accidentally falling into a trap," how about considering the possibility that they're right and have good reason for saying what they do?
Now you're even backpedaling, like "maybe" they're accidentally falling for a trap, maybe they're outright foreign agents, which we can tell because they had the audacity to refute misinformation. I ask again, "what fucking trap?"
It's like I say things and they don't even register. I'm so done with you trying to pull shit shit by arguing in bad faith and rehashing what was already said. I've been consistent in my answers and now you're doing some other shit. I can't with you Lemmings sometimes.
If you need clarification, I probably already gave it and you took it some other way. Go have fun with someone else.
I'm sorry people push back against propaganda on here, must be rough for you 😔
And you say that because you've clearly read my entire comment history and have reached a sound conclusion based on clear evidence that you can cite, right? Totally not being hypocritical, overreaching, dramatic, rude, and a little bit desperate to make one final jab, huh.
Yes, I don't have to go through your comment history, I can just cite the part where you accused the person in this thread of "bootlicking," despite just refuting misinformation. Already did cite that, in fact.
Ex dee, dude. And I can cite an entire conversation of you misreading into a comment and running with it like a chicken with its head cut off. Then dropping a quiz inside a word salad, all the while being perfectly obnoxious about it. How's that for citing shit from this thread?
Whatever pretense you had about rigor, it just went out the window.
You could post, "you've been running around like a chicken with its head cut off" while calling the other sides argument a "word salad" in response to literally anything. Instantly win any argument, no matter who said what or what it's about.
But that's literally what you did. Cope.
Again, sorry there are people here who disrupt your 5 minutes hate of circulating lies and propaganda about the people we're told to hate. Seethe.
Oh yeah? Quote me. Specify the targeted people and what I said about them. You got one chance.
I already did. The part where you took offense and accused someone of "bootlicking" for identifying lies and propaganda.
Eh, I knew you were gonna come up with some low-hanging bullshit.
Maybe you shouldn't hang your bullshit so low, then.
Oh shit, you got me. Maybe stop giving importance to such low-hanging bullshit. How about that? Between the one who makes it and the one who consumes it with their mouth wide open, I know who I'd rather be in this scenario.
Yes, I'd say it's very obvious that you prefer to spew bullshit everywhere, thank you for admitting it.
I don't "consume" your bullshit tho, I reject and refute it, despite your attempts to smear it everywhere.
Least childish .worlder
“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.” ― Jean-Paul Sartre
You are saying that, you dishonest little toad.
Because we've seen what the real life effect of this kind of mindless jingoism and chauvinism is; millions killed by American bombs.
No, .worlders just can't stop themselves from strawmanning.
That's an absurdly broad generalization, and one I'm going to present as proof that you see things in a cartoonish "good guys vs bad guys" framing.