this post was submitted on 05 May 2025
0 points (NaN% liked)
Korea / 조선
550 readers
1 users here now
A community about anything related to Korea, such as news about the countries (DPRK and south), discussion, photos and videos, the language, etc.
See also: [email protected], which is intended for memes rather than serious discussion of these topics.
The picture of this Lemmy community is magnolia (목란), the national flower of the DPRK. The background picture is a scenery of Pyongyang.
Rules:
-
No imperialist apologia. The DPRK didn't start the war. US imperialist invasion was not justified. Neither are their army bases in south Korea. The sanctions were and are not justified.
-
Be respectful. The imperialist media likes to describe the DPRK people as completely brainwashed, and that it'd be fine to completely destroy that country in an invasion. Don't act like the imperialist media.
-
Be skeptical of your sources. Don't trust the media that has been known to report many falsehoods about Korea already. (You may still link to them if they write something interesting / worth reading, just be careful.)
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No this isn't my problem. I agree with you. I prefer democracy where everyone gets a vote.
So you're fine with the DPRK then. They have that.
Well I'm not sure you can vote Kim out. I feel like it's more of a king deal instead of a democracy there. So I see that as a major problem.
if you're not sure, why make baseless assertions about the DPRK's political system?
Well, help me out. I'm not a North Korean expert.
The Wikipedia entry for Kim Jong Un currently states that he's a totalitarian dictatorship and his leadership has followed the same cult of personality as his father and grandfather.
But if there's a non-violent way to vote Kim out of his totalitarian dictatorship. Please enlighten me.
Why would you assume that a Wikipedia entry of all things is accurate? Have you looked at the sources? The citations in question are from The Independent and some Australian radio program, both of which consist of nothing but hearsay (which you'll find is true for most bourgeois "journalism").
Wikipedia is notoriously unreliable for anything geopolitical. The Wikimedia Foundation is completely aligned with US imperial interests -- just look at how they describe the CIA World Factbook as a reliable source