4 ms·

Yeah, and Amnesty International is a group with a "clearly stated agenda" to promote human rights. We still tend to trust their reports. I can't believe you're

Yeah, and Amnesty International is a group with a "clearly stated agenda" to promote human rights. We still tend to trust their reports. I can't believe you're equivocating the Cato Institute with a pro-DPRK think tank. It's not possible to defend the North Korean state honestly - by contrast, an organization dedicated to libertarianism has the motive to expose North Korea's unbelievable human rights abuses. They're not even the same ballpark.

3pt14159 9y ago
Yeah I have many problems with libertarianism, but the Cato Institute is biased but accurate source of information. Taking certain positions, like being pro-DPRK, literally require sacrificing objective truth. There is no comparison.
- dpwm 9y ago
  Since when was the Cato institute an accurate source of information?
  - empthought 9y ago
    Since its beginning? It doesn’t fabricate information; it just has a quirky interpretation of said information.
    - dpwm 9y ago
      If it's neither pushing an agenda nor trying to manipulate nor influence, why is it that submissions to libertarianism.org are being made mostly from two accounts that do not seem to otherwise engage in this community? No comments, no other posts, just posts to libertarianism.org. Whilst there's nothing specifically in the guidelines against the practice of accounts that just post to one website, the articles do tend to be inherently political and are at least pushing the guidelines in that respect. Even if we assume the accuracy of the information is unquestionable, a very high bar that even the most respected of sources do not meet, the behaviour seems shady and makes me deeply suspicious that they will be pulling at least some of the other tactics that can be employed to mislead. Does it not occur as strange to you that the majority of content on that site that gets posted here as stories is being posted by people who have no engagement with this community other than to post links to that website?
      - empthought 9y ago
        We were talking about the Cato Institute? Not HN posters? Also it is quite possible to have an agenda and a bias while still presenting accurate information, which is what you were sarcastically denigrating.
eeZah7Ux 9y ago
> Amnesty International is a group with a "clearly stated agenda" to promote human rights. We still tend to trust their reports This is an inconsistent comparison: A.I. "agenda" is to promote human rights, not a political worldview. > I can't believe you're equivocating the Cato Institute with a pro-DPRK think tank. It's not possible to defend the North Korean state [...] Questioning the accuracy of the report is in not automatically pro-DPRK. You are creating a false dichotomy.
dpwm 9y ago
> Yeah, and Amnesty International is a group with a "clearly stated agenda" to promote human rights. We still tend to trust their reports. Amnesty International's reports are about human rights abuses. If this was an Amnesty International report about human rights abuses in the DPRK, I would not suspect them of having an agenda. For what it's worth, they have a page on this that I broadly agree with [0]. > I can't believe you're equivocating the Cato Institute with a pro-DPRK think tank. I'm not. I'm saying it's expected to be ideologically opposed. I've tried to search the Cato institute for their criticisms of Saudi Arabia, and I broadly agree with them. But they're not as concerned about the human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia as in the DPRK. I should point out that all of the articles I read were articles, not podcasts, and were well-written. > It's not possible to defend the North Korean state honestly It's not possible to claim that defectors, paid for their stories, represent an unbiased sample of the population honestly. From a historical perspective, it's a poor source. It is now and it will be in 100 years. Unfortunately due to the secrecy in the DPRK we don't really have a way to objectively know how it is now short of living there. [0] https://www.amnesty.org.uk/issues/north-korea https://www.amnesty.org.uk/issues/north-korea
- woodandsteel 9y ago
  >It's not possible to claim that defectors, paid for their stories, represent an unbiased sample of the population honestly. From a historical perspective, it's a poor source. It is now and it will be in 100 years. Unfortunately due to the secrecy in the DPRK we don't really have a way to objectively know how it is now short of living there. So you have determined that every single defector who is interviewed by a journalist, historian, or human rights activist was paid for his story? You know, the broader question is the relationship between a countries form of government and how good life is for its citizens. You seem to believe that it is possible for an authoritarian government like that of North Korea to be good. And as a consequence there is no reason to chose liberal democracy over totalitarianism. Have I got you right?
  - dpwm 9y ago
    I want as much as anybody to believe that the DPRK and its people deserve what is being considered for it, because it will ease my conscience a little bit that I tolerated the people who seem to want to help agentically propagate the same old half-baked self-inconsistent nation-caricatures that carry with them the implicit justifications for yet another war with a country from the warmonger's wishlist to be inflicted by a state that has the world's largest prison population (the second largest per capita), a criminal justice system where your income determines your survival and a truly appalling human rights record. I will restate my points and elaborate upon them for clarity, because they seem to have been missed. 1. Most DPR Koreans have not defected (I count ~4 the past year) 2. Defectors are self-selected. 3. It is likely that the vast majority of attempted defections fail, resulting in repercussions from the state. Even if this were the case, we have an upper bound of 200,000. Approaching this upper bound assumes nobody is imprisoned for anything other than defection, which would be absurd. 4. It is highly unlikely that the successful defectors are representative of the general population of that country. Many of the comments on this article seem to accept the people are brainwashed, indoctrinated, completely controlled by propaganda. It seems unlikely that the same people are also consumed by a desire to be free and to defect and living in misery as a result. So my point is this: even if we could extract the memories and experiences directly from these defectors heads and watch them on a projector, they are likely to be so unrepresentative of the experience that you would have living there, having been brought up with the norms and customs of that country, as to be worthless. The fact that many have been paid for their testimonies, and those testimonies have failed to be consistent with other testimonies is really a tool to help those who still see merit in statistically meaningless testimonies to recognise that they are also likely to be influenced by the monetary offers for a satisfactory testimony. I'm not saying that atrocities are not happening. I suspect they are, as they are in many countries. But I also know that some of the more ridiculous stories that have been pumped out by propagandists are being regurgitated by reputable news sources. We've seen this before. The truth doesn't come out, it gets buried in the chaos.

3pt14159 9y ago

Yeah I have many problems with libertarianism, but the Cato Institute is biased but accurate source of information. Taking certain positions, like being pro-DPRK, literally require sacrificing objective truth. There is no comparison.

dpwm 9y ago
Since when was the Cato institute an accurate source of information?
- empthought 9y ago
  Since its beginning? It doesn’t fabricate information; it just has a quirky interpretation of said information.
  - dpwm 9y ago
    If it's neither pushing an agenda nor trying to manipulate nor influence, why is it that submissions to libertarianism.org are being made mostly from two accounts that do not seem to otherwise engage in this community? No comments, no other posts, just posts to libertarianism.org. Whilst there's nothing specifically in the guidelines against the practice of accounts that just post to one website, the articles do tend to be inherently political and are at least pushing the guidelines in that respect. Even if we assume the accuracy of the information is unquestionable, a very high bar that even the most respected of sources do not meet, the behaviour seems shady and makes me deeply suspicious that they will be pulling at least some of the other tactics that can be employed to mislead. Does it not occur as strange to you that the majority of content on that site that gets posted here as stories is being posted by people who have no engagement with this community other than to post links to that website?
    - empthought 9y ago
      We were talking about the Cato Institute? Not HN posters? Also it is quite possible to have an agenda and a bias while still presenting accurate information, which is what you were sarcastically denigrating.

eeZah7Ux 9y ago

> Amnesty International is a group with a "clearly stated agenda" to promote human rights. We still tend to trust their reports This is an inconsistent comparison: A.I. "agenda" is to promote human rights, not a political worldview. > I can't believe you're equivocating the Cato Institute with a pro-DPRK think tank. It's not possible to defend the North Korean state [...] Questioning the accuracy of the report is in not automatically pro-DPRK. You are creating a false dichotomy.

dpwm 9y ago

> Yeah, and Amnesty International is a group with a "clearly stated agenda" to promote human rights. We still tend to trust their reports. Amnesty International's reports are about human rights abuses. If this was an Amnesty International report about human rights abuses in the DPRK, I would not suspect them of having an agenda. For what it's worth, they have a page on this that I broadly agree with [0]. > I can't believe you're equivocating the Cato Institute with a pro-DPRK think tank. I'm not. I'm saying it's expected to be ideologically opposed. I've tried to search the Cato institute for their criticisms of Saudi Arabia, and I broadly agree with them. But they're not as concerned about the human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia as in the DPRK. I should point out that all of the articles I read were articles, not podcasts, and were well-written. > It's not possible to defend the North Korean state honestly It's not possible to claim that defectors, paid for their stories, represent an unbiased sample of the population honestly. From a historical perspective, it's a poor source. It is now and it will be in 100 years. Unfortunately due to the secrecy in the DPRK we don't really have a way to objectively know how it is now short of living there. [0] https://www.amnesty.org.uk/issues/north-korea https://www.amnesty.org.uk/issues/north-korea

woodandsteel 9y ago
>It's not possible to claim that defectors, paid for their stories, represent an unbiased sample of the population honestly. From a historical perspective, it's a poor source. It is now and it will be in 100 years. Unfortunately due to the secrecy in the DPRK we don't really have a way to objectively know how it is now short of living there. So you have determined that every single defector who is interviewed by a journalist, historian, or human rights activist was paid for his story? You know, the broader question is the relationship between a countries form of government and how good life is for its citizens. You seem to believe that it is possible for an authoritarian government like that of North Korea to be good. And as a consequence there is no reason to chose liberal democracy over totalitarianism. Have I got you right?
- dpwm 9y ago
  I want as much as anybody to believe that the DPRK and its people deserve what is being considered for it, because it will ease my conscience a little bit that I tolerated the people who seem to want to help agentically propagate the same old half-baked self-inconsistent nation-caricatures that carry with them the implicit justifications for yet another war with a country from the warmonger's wishlist to be inflicted by a state that has the world's largest prison population (the second largest per capita), a criminal justice system where your income determines your survival and a truly appalling human rights record. I will restate my points and elaborate upon them for clarity, because they seem to have been missed. 1. Most DPR Koreans have not defected (I count ~4 the past year) 2. Defectors are self-selected. 3. It is likely that the vast majority of attempted defections fail, resulting in repercussions from the state. Even if this were the case, we have an upper bound of 200,000. Approaching this upper bound assumes nobody is imprisoned for anything other than defection, which would be absurd. 4. It is highly unlikely that the successful defectors are representative of the general population of that country. Many of the comments on this article seem to accept the people are brainwashed, indoctrinated, completely controlled by propaganda. It seems unlikely that the same people are also consumed by a desire to be free and to defect and living in misery as a result. So my point is this: even if we could extract the memories and experiences directly from these defectors heads and watch them on a projector, they are likely to be so unrepresentative of the experience that you would have living there, having been brought up with the norms and customs of that country, as to be worthless. The fact that many have been paid for their testimonies, and those testimonies have failed to be consistent with other testimonies is really a tool to help those who still see merit in statistically meaningless testimonies to recognise that they are also likely to be influenced by the monetary offers for a satisfactory testimony. I'm not saying that atrocities are not happening. I suspect they are, as they are in many countries. But I also know that some of the more ridiculous stories that have been pumped out by propagandists are being regurgitated by reputable news sources. We've seen this before. The truth doesn't come out, it gets buried in the chaos.