lmfamao

It’s literally propaganda. For some reason I subjected myself to watching the BBC video that the article referenced and screenshotting the Korean text that the BBC video purports is autocorrecting terms in real time. Below are the findings

The only (half) correct claims they make are the “South Korea” and “comrade” translations, but they could just have set the autocorrect in the phone’s settings for each and every word in this video, before making it lmfao

Completely baseless claims and frankly pathetic attempt. Crazy how this shit spreads like wildfire

Based on the provided files, here's the translation analysis: 

1.  **IMG_0283.png:**
 South Korea
남한 | 1  

### Translation Analysis:
1. **Korean Text**: `남한` (pronounced "Nam-han")  
   - **Literal Translation**:  
     - `남` = "South"  
     - `한` = Short for "한국" (Hanguk), meaning "Korea"  
   - **Correct Translation**: **"South Korea"**  

2. **English Caption**:  
   The English text `South Korea` **perfectly matches** the Korean term `남한`.  

3. **Additional Note**:  
   The `| 1` appears to be a separator and numerical indicator (e.g., a menu/item number), **not part of the translation**.  

### Conclusion:  
✅ **Yes, the English translation is 100% correct.**  
- `남한` is the standard Korean term for "South Korea" (contrasted with `북한` for "North Korea").  

### Extra Context:  
- While `대한민국` (Daehan Minguk) is the formal/official name ("Republic of Korea"), `남한` is the universally used shorthand in daily language and media.

2.  **IMG_0282.png:**
    *   Korean Word: **동지** (dong-ji) - Found in the `[file content begin]` section near the bottom ("Comrade / 동지").
    *   English Caption: **Comrade**
    *   Caption Correct? **Yes**. "동지" (dong-ji) directly translates to "Comrade". It's a term often used in socialist/communist contexts or historically in leftist movements in Korea.

3.  **IMG_0281.png:**
    *   Korean Word: **동지** (dong-ji) - Found under "Comrade".
    *   English Caption: **Comrade**
    *   Caption Correct? **Yes**. (Same translation as above).

4.  ** Based on the content in **IMG_0284.jpeg**:  

Puppet state
+  
과뢰지역  

### Translation Analysis:  
1. **Korean Text**: `과뢰지역`  
   - This appears to be a **misspelling** of the correct term `괴뢰 지역` (goe-roe ji-yeok).  
   - `괴뢰` = "puppet" (referring to a politically controlled entity)  
   - `지역` = "region" or "area"  
   - **Correct Translation**: **"Puppet region"** or **"Puppet state"** (contextually equivalent).  

2. **English Caption**:  
   `Puppet state` is **semantically correct** but not a literal translation.  
   - The Korean term specifies "region" (`지역`), not "state" (`국가`).  

3. **Accuracy Assessment**:  
   - ⚠️ **Conceptually Similar**: The core meaning ("puppet regime/entity") is somewhat conveyed.  
   - ⚠️ **Terminology Nuance**:  
     - A stricter translation would be "puppet region" (less common in English).  

### Conclusion:  
**The English caption is functionally correct** for real-world usage, though it slightly generalizes the Korean term. The minor spelling error (`과뢰` → `괴뢰`) doesn’t affect the meaning.  

### Additional Notes:  
- The correct Korean spelling is **`괴뢰`**, not `과뢰` (likely a typo).  
- In historical/political contexts (e.g., Korean War), "괴뢰 정권" (puppet regime) or "괴뢰 국가" (puppet state) are commonly used.

**Summary of Korean Words & Translations:**

*   The *only* Korean word appearing in the provided files is **동지** (dong-ji).
*   Its English caption, **Comrade**, is **correct**.

The iDumb Pro Max flip phone with next gen T9, starting at $1399

How about this for evidence? Taken from M1ch431 elsewhere in this thread

The original source is a verified, leaked email (dated April 23, 2015) from her 2016 campaign. The DNC plan was attached in the email and can be found here. The specific quote is from Salon.

No form, just whisper 'sudo apt-get install femboy-starter-kit' into the void and they will arrive within 24 hours

Oh, bless Apple's heart, always looking out for us! It's purely coincidental that their “concern” aligns perfectly with protecting their profit margins and crushing any semblance of competition. I'm sure the irony of a company that has faced numerous privacy concerns itself is completely lost on you. And I'm sure that little red exclamation mark isn't designed to scare anyone into using Apple Pay exclusively. No, absolutely not. It's just good, old-fashioned corporate altruism! 😊

Project Oracle babyyyy

This is how every single IoT company works. This is the standard. You can even tell from the app that they used a shitty templating app that makes this app look the same compared to every other shitty IoT app.

You literally have to establish cloud access first by registering an account or SSO then signing in before even using the app. Then you grant Bluetooth access. You can download the app and see right now.

At ANY point this company can collect your data or do any combination of things from the list I mentioned.

The app doesn’t have to exist. Calibration can happen via other means.

You're zeroing in on this one app's supposed utility, missing the broader, well-documented pattern of issues with app-dependent, cloud-connected devices. The fundamental problem isn't this specific app, but the systemic risks: data harvesting, planned obsolescence when servers shut down, and companies shifting terms post-purchase. Dismissing valid comparisons because the product category differs is a smokescreen. The concern isn't an assumption based on nothing; it's based on a consistent history of consumer-unfriendly practices across the IoT landscape.

1. Google Nest Secure: Bricked by server shutdown (announced for April 2024).
2. Revolv Smart Home Hub: Bricked by server shutdown after Nest acquisition (2016).
3. Vizio Smart TVs: Caught collecting and selling viewing data (settlement in 2017).
4. Sonos Older Speakers: Attempted forced obsolescence through a "recycle mode" (faced backlash around 2020).
5. iRobot (Roomba): Privacy concerns over mapping user homes and data sharing (surfaced significantly around 2017-2022, especially with Amazon acquisition talks).
6. Anki (Cozmo/Vector Robots): Company folded, impacting cloud server access for full functionality (2019).
7. Cloud-Based Pet Feeders: Multiple brands have had server outages causing failures (ongoing issue, specific examples like Petnet in 2016 & 2020).
8. Wink Smart Home Hubs: Imposed sudden mandatory subscription fees (2020).
9. Philips Hue Smart Lights: Increased account requirements and phased out older bridge support (various changes, e.g., original bridge support ended 2020).
10. My Cloud Home Drives (Western Digital):Local file access blocked during server outages (notable widespread outages in 2021 and 2023).
11. "Smart" Padlocks: Prone to software/hardware failures and security vulnerabilities discovered (ongoing, e.g., Tapplock issues reported around 2018-2019).
12. Chamberlain MyQ Garage Doors: Blocked third-party integrations (significant moves around 2023).

Skepticism isn't an "assumption based on nothing"; it's pattern recognition.

Exactly. They passed the CR and Schumer blew what leverage Dems had at that moment.

Or you know, maybe putting up a bit more of a fight by not actively voting for trump’s picks like Bessent or Duffy. Not exactly Ws, but 🤷

Your latest missive pivots rather dramatically from the pretense of philosophical debate to a flurry of ad hominem attacks and mischaracterizations. It seems when the foundations of your argument grew shaky, you opted to critique the architect rather than the architecture. Let us dismantle this new edifice of deflection, brick by rhetorical brick.

• The Mirage of Inconsistency: You accuse me of shifting sands, yet it is you who seems unable to grasp nuance. To state that agency exists within profound systemic constraints is not a contradiction; it is the very definition of navigating oppressive structures. Resistance being difficult or rare due to these constraints does not magically erase the possibility or the moral weight of choice – it merely highlights the cost, a cost whistleblowers like Manning and Snowden demonstrably paid. To hold both truths – constraint and agency – is complexity, not inconsistency. Similarly, acknowledging proportionality in guilt (Nuremberg) while insisting responsibility extends beyond the absolute apex is not contradictory; it’s precisely how sophisticated legal and ethical systems function, something you conveniently ignore by focusing solely on the very top tier of defendants. Your demand for simplistic binaries forces you to see contradiction where there is only layered reality.

• The Phantom Quote & The Ad Hominem Shuffle: You attribute phrases to me – "enjoying murdering civilians," "joining up to shoot people" – enclosed in quotation marks, implying direct citation. Let the record show: this is a fabrication, a straw man sculpted from bad faith. My critique targets the function and outcomes of military institutions and the roles within them – the deployment of lethal force, the upholding of imperial interests, the predictable generation of civilian casualties. To conflate this structural critique with accusations of individual bloodlust is a deliberate, and frankly desperate, misrepresentation. Your subsequent pivot to my supposed motivations ("judging from a safe distance," lacking "courage" to speak to veterans) is a textbook ad hominem fallacy. The validity of a critique of systemic violence does not hinge on the speaker's personal proximity to its agents. One need not personally interview every CEO profiting from exploitation to critique capitalism, nor every soldier to critique militarism. The system, its logic, and its effects are the subject, not the individual psyche of every participant – though the system certainly shapes that psyche.

• The Patronizing Plea for "Humanity": You position yourself as the champion of the working-class enlistee, painting them as purely reactive victims navigating "impossible choices." While acknowledging the brutal reality of economic conscription is crucial (a point I’ve consistently integrated), your framework uses this reality as a shield against any ethical scrutiny. You offer a vision of "dignity" that amounts to infantilization – treating individuals as incapable of moral reasoning under pressure. True dignity lies in recognizing their capacity for choice, however constrained, and demanding systems that don't weaponize poverty against them and others. Your call to "see their humanity" rings hollow when it serves primarily to silence critique of the violent systems they are compelled (or choose) to serve. Empathy should not require ethical blindness.

• The Illusion of "No Path Forward": You lament that my position offers only "judgment." This willfully ignores the tangible effects of cultural shifts driven by critique and stigma. Reducing the social license of militarism, questioning the automatic valorization of service, challenging the normalization of state violence – these are paths forward. They erode the foundations upon which recruitment, funding, and political support for perpetual war are built. Policy change rarely happens in a vacuum; it often follows a profound shift in public consciousness, a shift fueled by the very "moral gatekeeping" you disdain. To demand neat policy proposals while dismissing the cultural work that makes them possible is, again, a strategic evasion. Accountability itself is a constructive step.

In conclusion, your argument has devolved from debating principles to impugning motives and constructing straw men. You oscillate between portraying soldiers as helpless pawns and moral agents depending on which framing best deflects criticism. You demand empathy as a substitute for accountability and mistake pragmatic analysis of constraints for a denial of all agency. This isn't a robust defense; it's a tactical retreat into sentimentalism and misdirection.

The path beyond the horrors of imperialism and state violence isn't paved with comforting evasions or the blanket absolution of all who participate under duress. It requires rigorous critique of the systems and a clear-eyed understanding of the choices made within them – scaled by power, yes, but never entirely erased. It demands we hold faith in the capacity of all people, even the oppressed, to engage in moral reasoning and, sometimes, courageous resistance. Your framework, which offers paternalistic pity instead of demanding accountability and radical change, ultimately serves only the systems we both claim to oppose.--

Let’s take a different tack, because it seems like you’re not fully comprehending how much your arguments have not only shifted drastically since the beginning of this exchange, but are crumbling under their own contradictions.

Let’s hold your words side by side, while maintaining context:

You initially claimed: "Acknowledging how systems limit choice isn’t denying moral agency—it’s recognizing its realistic boundaries." Yet later, you dismissed whistleblowers as exceptions: "Manning and Snowden don’t simply represent 'rare courage'—they had specific access… that made their actions possible."

So which is it? If systemic constraints merely 'bound' agency, why frame resistance as requiring "extraordinary circumstances"? You can’t simultaneously argue that choice exists within constraints and that dissent is so exceptional it proves nothing.

You insisted: "Responsibility must scale realistically with power, knowledge, and genuine choice." But when pressed, you narrowed this to: "Nuremberg focused primarily on leadership… distinguishing between architects and participants."

Except Nuremberg did prosecute mid-tier actors—a fact you ignore to protect your hierarchy of guilt. You demand "proportionality" but define it to absolve all but elites.

You accused me of "mistaking moral absolutism for moral clarity" while arguing: "Effective movements… focus on policies, not individuals." Yet earlier, you praised the civil rights movement for "strategic targeting"—which included boycotts that shamed individual businesses and exposed specific perpetrators.

You vacillate between "systems matter, not people" and "sometimes people matter" to dodge scrutiny.

You framed enlistment as survival: "The teenager… isn’t making the same 'choice' as your philosophical thought experiment assumes." But when I noted enlistment often involves cultural factors (glory, legacy), you pivoted: "The working class deserves… recognition as moral actors."

So which is it? Are enlistees helpless victims of circumstance or moral agents capable of questioning systems? You toggle between these to avoid conceding that poverty limits—but doesn’t obliterate—choice.

You cited Nuremberg to argue "accountability requires focus"—yet ignored that the trials explicitly rejected "just following orders" even for low-ranking SS. You cherry-pick history to sanitize complicity.

You claimed: "Real change comes through political organization… not moral gatekeeping." But later admitted: "The anti-war movement… normalized draft-card burning." So suddenly, cultural stigma is part of "pragmatism"? Your definition of "practical" shifts to exclude critique when inconvenient.

Conclusion: Your argument isn’t a coherent stance—it’s a series of tactical retreats. When pressed on agency, you cite constraints. When shown resistance, you dismiss it as exceptional. When confronted with history, you cherry-pick. This isn’t systemic analysis—it’s intellectual arbitrage, exploiting ambiguity to evade hard truths. It seems that consistency is the first casualty of your philosophy.