this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2026
44 points (69.6% liked)
Memes
56406 readers
1122 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Bro said "give me all the bias"
Famously, support for US neocolonies isn't biased at all: just common sense
That's also biased.
Bobo League Massacre
Taiwanese White Terror
Israel
You don't really need bias to come to these conclusions.
That's not how the legitimacy of a state works. A state doesn't become illegitimate because of war crimes.
when does it then, in your opinion?
Legitimacy is in my opinion just a concept that has been invented by a ruling power to disenfranchise a secessionist state. It stems from the feudalistic times when the legitimacy of a heir was crucial. Rivaling nobles both claiming to be the heir. That's where legitimacy originally came from.
This concept has persevered through time, somehow, even though nobles are a thing of the past. The only metric that can somewhat measure legitimacy is whether the citizens inside are in favor of the state as such, as they usually form the state. However, even this does not decide legitimacy. Even a dictator-state with a population that hates him can have legitimacy. Purely because that state exercises real power over a region and its legitimacy isn't contested by other states.
Let me take North Korea as an example. It started out as a people's revolution, at the time you would say that North Korea would be legitimate in that sense. South Korea has legitimacy as it was the state that controlled the region up until that revolution. If we lived in a perfect world, the revolution would have been completely succesful and the legimitacy would have fully transfered from ROK to DPRK. However, we dont. Both hold some form of legitimacy, ROK as the original ruling state, and DPRK as the people's preference at time of the revolution. Currently, ROK, too, has some legitimacy coming from its population, since it transfered from a dictatorship to a democracy, increasing its popularity among the population.
So my view is that both can be legitimate in different ways. Then it comes down to who de facto rules the land. Other countries recognize whoever they prefer geopolitically. But picking a side is inherently biased and ignores and discards the legitimacy of the rival state. Only people led by propaganda will pick a side.
Other factors include genocide, historical claims, ethnic differences, religious differences etc etc
What, exactly, do you think happened to all the people over which the ROK (in effect NATO) extended it's authority after the armstice who disagreed with the apparent legitimacy? Do you not believe that there was and has been strife between the new state and its populance since the armstice? Are you not aware that the entire armed forces of the ROK are dirrctly under the US's command? Will absolutely nothing except external condemnation make a state illegitimate to you? Who does it take to legitimize the struggle of the people within ROK for you?
Both my citations occurred before these territories claimed independence. In fact, these periods preceded efforts to retake the old territory.
Not unlike the American Confederacy or the South of Vietnam, two territories we've got no problem acknowledging as illegitimate.
Explain what you think the word bias means and why its presence should be disqualifying
Bias means being opinionated/having preconceptions on a topic. I never said it was disqualifying. I just pointed out that he had a lot of bias on a lot of these geopolitical issues in a humorous way.
Most (slightly knowledgeable) people are more nuanced than that, that's why it stood out.
And then you came along and said "I believe the US State Department."
I know which opinion I find to be far more questionable.
Not at all. People love making assumptions here.
I believe reality is very nuanced.