this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2025
866 points (98.9% liked)

Technology

77329 readers
2445 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] zqps@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Yeah it was asked in bad faith and framed in a manipulative way.

That's not a good thing and should be called out, no matter if you disagree with the person it was directed at. It's called integrity.

[–] bitcrafter@programming.dev 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Generally when one refers to a country as being "occupied", the implication is that the people there are poor off as a result, especially relative to a neighboring country whose land is presumably being considered occupied, which in this case is implicitly North Korea due to the history of how the two countries split. It is therefore not in bad faith to directly ask whether the people there are better or worse off as a result.

You also seem to be hyper-fixated on one possible meaning of prosperous, which is "wealth and GDP", when there are lots of other means related to flourishing in general. The original commenter was perfectly free to provide an answer along the lines of, "North Korea is the more prosperous country because X." where X is a list of ways in which the people there are flourishing, and this would have been a valid answer (if not necessarily a correct one).

Alternatively, if they think that South Korea is better off but this does not matter because it is still less ethical than North Korea, then they could have taken the opportunity to be up front about that.

So in short, this question could have been used in all sorts of ways to provide an answer that clarified the commenter's position. It is a shame that we never heard from them exactly what their thoughts were.

[–] zqps@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 weeks ago

So in short, this question could have been used in all sorts of ways to provide an answer that clarified the commenter's position.

I mean, in the way it was asked not really. It was explicitly asked, or rather condescendingly demanded, as a simple binary choice stripped of all context.

That's not how you engage with someone when you actually want to get their take on a complex issue. That's how you engage if you want to score an easy win for upvotes. And I for one am done with that kinda hostile "debate bro" culture / popularity contest that's defined many subreddits over the years. It shuts down any chance for an actual exchange. So let's not act surprised at the result.