This isn't just simple assault, it's also battery on the level of severity of causing permanent disability. The sentence goes up to 10 years for more severe assault and battery: https://www.thekoreanlawblog.com/2023/01/sentence-korean-crime-korea.html . Based on what they say there, this guy probably received closer to the minimum sentence.

I kind of understand your way of reasoning in this affair, you seem to apply the principle of the lesser of two evils and i don’t deny that NATO is by far worse than their enemies, but then wouldn’t liberals also be in the right when they support the “lesser of two evils”?.

Without touching the rest of it, the idea is not to support the lesser evil, but to support what is historically progressive despite its negative elements. If two things are both a net bad but there is a lesser evil, it is generally a better answer to support neither.

All of the "CRINK" countries have negative elements -- particularly Russian chauvinism and Iranian theocracy -- but the Axis of Resistance's overall operations tend towards multilateral internationalism rather than domination by a single superpower like NATO favors.

P.S. as davel said, your English is great

The whole article is almost certainly demeaning, as you would expect of a celebrity gossip rag.

Taking the quote completely at face value:

So it's now censorship of freedom of expression if the state is not actively sponsoring, advertising, and distributing criticism of itself? I should try writing to NPR about how we need a proletarian party controlling the government so I can say that they've "censored" me when they obviously don't invite me on to talk about it.

but the police allowed the protests to rage for weeks and did not violently repress them.

The HK cops absolutely were violent, it was just unfathomably better controlled than American cops, because they didn't kill a single person despite the huge scale of the protests and reasonably long time period. Literally the only living being who I have heard about their actions killing was a cat that got caught in teargas (whose owner brought it to the protests like a moron). Meanwhile the HK protestors, in a deliberate and targeted manner, immolated a civilian for aiding the police (I think he opened a gate for them or something), along with abuses that were less serious, like beating up the odd pro-mainland HK civilian or less-targeted, like when they negligently bricked that old man and he died.

Edit: I hope that's not just an incomprehensible pile of anecdotes.

Why the fuck would I argue with someone who minimizes genocide like that? It's not like your rotten opinion means anything, and anyone else sees the shit you tried to pull comment 1.

a normal apple that happens to have bad bump on it.

It must be bait that you describe supporting an ongoing genocide as "a bad bump on a normal apple". Come on, I never doubted that that's what you really think of the people in the third world, but saying it out loud like that? If you want to be a good Harris propagandist, you're going to need to do a better job of pretending you care about humans and it's just such a shame that you can't vote against genocide. That's the way that you scoundrels vote shame properly, with crocodile tears and disavowal.

Contrary to certain self-victimizing sentiments, I think that the problem is that the platform is more and more overtaken by the topic of the election (and Israel in reference thereto) and it just results in interminable arguing in circles that accomplishes nothing but wasting time. Regardless of the outcome of the election, I think less-annoying activity will increase afterwards.

God damn, it really is "But Trump!" every time you criticize Harris

I'd hesitate to be too smol bean Japan about it considering they were brutalizing East Asia systematically at the time.

This is wrong on almost every level. It wasn't a genocide (some people call it that, but the mainstream liberal historical consensus is that it was collectivization being botched along with some bad crop conditions), it has very little to do with anything happening in the war, and the Russian Federation was brought into existence in order to overthrow the communists. The logical end point of Putin's weird revanchist rhetoric is closer to wanting to undo the separation of nations in the former Russian Empire that began under Lenin and bring things back to the Tsarist model that preceded it. That's what he means when he says that he wants to show Ukraine what "decommunization" entails, since the Ukrainian Soviet Republic, while it was still under a central authority, had greater autonomy than the region had under the Tsar and he is making the threat that he will take that away.

God, I hate how bad education is that this even needs to be explained. Imperial Russia had been suffering from famines on a cyclical basis for centuries and, contrary to what some people say, neither Lenin nor Stalin were magicians who could just bend reality in the USSR, though many -- including some "Stalinist" Marxists -- argue that Stalin basically tried to for left-deviationist reasons when material conditions didn't actually support collectivising the way he wanted the state to, and that (along with drought and blight) caused the famine. Important to understanding this, however, is that the only time there would ever be a famine in the USSR after that was in the aftermath of the Nazi invasion as a direct result thereof. The next "famine" in Russia would be around 50 years later with the establishment of the Russian Federation, where the gutting of just about every public program and industry caused a huge excess death event over a period of a couple years.

The idea of it being a genocide -- aside from being a lie popularized by Goebbels that has no support in the Soviet archives -- is even more ridiculous for the fact that the famine ended and nothing ever happened to the Ukrainians on fractionally that scale except for the Nazis! But of course the Ukrainian Nazis love saying the Russians wanted all Ukrainians dead, because it gave them cover for perpetrating the Holocaust (see "double genocide theory").

To add one last point on "this doesn't work as a genocide," a plurality of the victims were Ukrainian nationals, but it was spread out over multiple nations and the part of Ukraine the famine impacted was overwhelmingly in the east. You know, the part that's Russian in huge disproportion. Of course, one of the other countries impacted, with I think 1.5 million dead or something like that, was Russia! It would be like trying to wipe out a population by detonating an atom bomb where a quarter of the blast is on your side of the border, then just not doing anything when most of the population you targeted survived! It only makes sense if you're assuming the Russians were such miserable morons that the dumbest Banderite bandit is incomparably more refined.

Think the little red book was a bad strategy for its time because it's essentially a collection of quotations, so it wasn't good for systematic understanding of Mao's thought. In the modern day the internet at least makes it somewhat better because the LRB has citations, so you can just look them up and see the context for the statement.

I'm kind of curious how the LRB came about, since it feels pretty condescending, but Mao was perhaps the most optimistic political leader I've ever heard of in terms of just giving the people a small bit of advice or a revised law and letting them handle the rest (this sometimes went extremely poorly, of course).

Aside, again, from the fact that Gaza is being undercounted severely due to strict criteria for marking a civilian death combined with most of the hospitals in Gaza being blown up, yes! the rate of killing matters a great deal to understanding what is going on unless you are taking the hysterical view that Putin is going to kill every Ukrainian and is just dragging his feet a little.

Didn’t formulate it any way, that’s you assuming.

That's me reading English. What I was referring to is a set phrase, but it's not a fossilization, it's still just what the words mean if you're actively putting them together. God, this is such an annoying, pointless argument.

I am obliged to note that genocide does not need to be racial (it can target religion, sexuality, nationality, etc.), but your point stands because none of those apply either. I'll just mark it in the Black Book of Capitalism and be content with that.

You formulated it as though you were bringing up something new: "you mean the same X who Y" is for introducing something new into the conversation in relation to X, with X here being Jill Stein. If you had just used David Duke as X and "who lead the KKK" as Y, it wouldn't have been an absurd contribution.

Though it would still be a silly one, since people know who David Duke is, it's not some obscure fact. He's the single most recognizable name in connection with the KKK, perhaps along with the long-dead D.W. Griffith (but probably not).

starved a great many by just capitalist ideology, but that’s not really genocide…

Genocide doesn't require bloodthirst, it does just fine with sacrifice whole populations for some other goal or accepting those deaths as "collateral". The UN definition supports this.

You are right in general that SCMP is going to cheer on China, but MBFC is a stupid, question-begging, centrist website run by someone with no qualifications and spread around so centrists can use it as a "gotcha" in the style of an informal fallacy. I'm sure that others will have takedowns saved to share with you.

I think the article is good since it's just dryly reporting on a survey from what I can tell, I just sympathize with being wary.

What are you doing with cutesy sarcasm and cherrypicked headlines? Just look at the civilian death tolls. The immediately-presented numbers are 36k over 3.5 years to 42k over 1 year, and that's again with massive under-reporting in the latter case.

Did you even read what I said? I directly acknowledged that the logical implication of my strategy is that Trump is more likely to win the upcoming election because I'm interested in how subsequent elections will be impacted. The calculus of "Always vote for the nearest viable candidate" is liberal dogma, yes, but it's not the only strategy and I find it to be a bad long-term strategy, because it just incentivizes an accelerating rightward drift from the "left" candidate, leaving you with two right candidates.

Despite needing to re-explain myself, I took what you said at face value and not as just being condescending wank, and now I guess I have egg on my face for my trouble.