What I said is that legitimacy is just a term used to disenfranchise rivaling states. States claim legitimacy, even though such a thing does not exist. Legitimacy was a thing from the nobles, when a child could be a legitimate heir or not.
The only real thing in existence is force. There are all kinds of reasons to claim legitimacy (all the factors I mentioned), but none of them decide legitimacy in essence, since legitimacy is not a thing.
ROK claimed legitimacy due to it being the state that had control in the region at first. But a reason to claim they were not legitimate was the fact the populace didnât support them. Both of these arguments are valid. None of them decide anything, because the world doesnât work that way. The only thing that matters is that ROK controlled the land at that time, the countries that recognized ROK supported them, but that the populace didnât support them at the time. Those are the facts that should be taken at face value. Of course its claims legitimacy. And of course DPRK challenged that legitimacy by arguing it did have the support of the people, however, it had to fight for control over the region, which was partly successful, and some countries recognized them. The facts were as they were, both claimed legitimacy, both had valid reasons to do so.
All the other countries or ideologies picked a side on the matter which was most beneficial to them and that is that. I just donât see the value as an individual to pick a side on the question of legitimacy. Looking at the measurable facts is much more useful.
So you decide that âmight actually makes right!â and go around parroting US-propaganda while claiming to be more ânuancedâ than those of us âpropagandizedâ and âchoosing sidesâ. What exactly do you think would change if everyone were as nuanced as you, and just accept the status quo? Are you actually for real, bro? Youâre allowed to be stupid disinformed, arrogance is a choice.
Whatâs with you guys putting words in my mouth? Iâm not saying might makes right. There is a big difference between being a âlegitimateâ state and actions being taken by a state being ethical (right).
Iâm not parroting US propaganda. Did you read what I said? I said North Korea is a legitimate state. How is that US propaganda?
I donât benefit from picking a side. I believe sanctions against North Korea should be lifted. Iâm in favor of a peaceful unification of the Koreaâs to resolve the war, like both of the Koreaâs want. That would be my official stance if I were in a position of power.
Yes, picking a side blindly based on ideological reasons instead of realistically looking at the situation and the power structures is stupid.
âLike both of the Koreaâs wantâ, but the southern state doesnât, even if part or all of the people there wanted!
Like Iâm really struggling to see your point here. You are just accepting the status quo, right? You go around supporting fascist states also, claiming to be better because youâre not choosing sides. Treatler behaviour.
It is the official South Korean policy to one day have a united Korea. Same goes for North Korea.
The disagreement is of course about how such united Korea would look like.
The population of South Korea currently massively prefers the South Korean government over that of North Korea. This is clear from the elections: you would see support for much more worker oriented parties otherwise.
Iâm not accepting the status quo. I havenât even talked about what I would want for the region. This whole discussion was only about âlegitimacyâ of a state and understanding the status quo; doesnât mean I want it to stay like the status quo.
However, to form a balanced opinion of what should happen in the region, you first must get a balanced, realistic, fundamental understanding of the status quo. Not just âyeah this state is illegitimate because this this and thisâ, without looking at the claims of legitimacy of the other side, which are in most cases also valid reasons for claiming legitimacy. That just comes down to âthe ideologies/countries/opinions I prefer favor this country over the other, so I call this one illegitimate and this one legitimateâ.
RetroFed
Share on Mastodon
Share on Reddit
Share on WhatsApp
What I said is that legitimacy is just a term used to disenfranchise rivaling states. States claim legitimacy, even though such a thing does not exist. Legitimacy was a thing from the nobles, when a child could be a legitimate heir or not.
The only real thing in existence is force. There are all kinds of reasons to claim legitimacy (all the factors I mentioned), but none of them decide legitimacy in essence, since legitimacy is not a thing.
ROK claimed legitimacy due to it being the state that had control in the region at first. But a reason to claim they were not legitimate was the fact the populace didnât support them. Both of these arguments are valid. None of them decide anything, because the world doesnât work that way. The only thing that matters is that ROK controlled the land at that time, the countries that recognized ROK supported them, but that the populace didnât support them at the time. Those are the facts that should be taken at face value. Of course its claims legitimacy. And of course DPRK challenged that legitimacy by arguing it did have the support of the people, however, it had to fight for control over the region, which was partly successful, and some countries recognized them. The facts were as they were, both claimed legitimacy, both had valid reasons to do so.
All the other countries or ideologies picked a side on the matter which was most beneficial to them and that is that. I just donât see the value as an individual to pick a side on the question of legitimacy. Looking at the measurable facts is much more useful.
So you decide that âmight actually makes right!â and go around parroting US-propaganda while claiming to be more ânuancedâ than those of us âpropagandizedâ and âchoosing sidesâ. What exactly do you think would change if everyone were as nuanced as you, and just accept the status quo? Are you actually for real, bro? Youâre allowed to be
stupiddisinformed, arrogance is a choice.Whatâs with you guys putting words in my mouth? Iâm not saying might makes right. There is a big difference between being a âlegitimateâ state and actions being taken by a state being ethical (right).
Iâm not parroting US propaganda. Did you read what I said? I said North Korea is a legitimate state. How is that US propaganda?
I donât benefit from picking a side. I believe sanctions against North Korea should be lifted. Iâm in favor of a peaceful unification of the Koreaâs to resolve the war, like both of the Koreaâs want. That would be my official stance if I were in a position of power.
Yes, picking a side blindly based on ideological reasons instead of realistically looking at the situation and the power structures is stupid.
âLike both of the Koreaâs wantâ, but the southern state doesnât, even if part or all of the people there wanted!
Like Iâm really struggling to see your point here. You are just accepting the status quo, right? You go around supporting fascist states also, claiming to be better because youâre not choosing sides. Treatler behaviour.
It is the official South Korean policy to one day have a united Korea. Same goes for North Korea.
The disagreement is of course about how such united Korea would look like.
The population of South Korea currently massively prefers the South Korean government over that of North Korea. This is clear from the elections: you would see support for much more worker oriented parties otherwise.
Iâm not accepting the status quo. I havenât even talked about what I would want for the region. This whole discussion was only about âlegitimacyâ of a state and understanding the status quo; doesnât mean I want it to stay like the status quo.
However, to form a balanced opinion of what should happen in the region, you first must get a balanced, realistic, fundamental understanding of the status quo. Not just âyeah this state is illegitimate because this this and thisâ, without looking at the claims of legitimacy of the other side, which are in most cases also valid reasons for claiming legitimacy. That just comes down to âthe ideologies/countries/opinions I prefer favor this country over the other, so I call this one illegitimate and this one legitimateâ.
aight, bet.