The phrase may be funny but the sentiment is genuine: we critically support the DPRK.
Maybe I misunderstand you, though. If you mean it shouldn't be used in the company of liberals we're trying to persuade, then I agree. It's an in-joke among Western leftists, essentially.
Frankly, I think the DPRK is a horrible regime. It is heavily affected by the US though, and that subject can be hard to parse for libs who aren't versed in world politics.
What does "not supporting" a country mean exactly and why do you as a westerner feel the right to pass this sort of judgement onto previously colonized countries that have only ever faced an existential threat from the west? Nothing grosser than this leftover settler colonialist/ imperialist mindset that the world revolves around the approval of westerners
There's a difference between not liking the functions of an imperfect state, and imposing/projecting your own idealism to how it should function. A totally valid anti-imperialist take is we should not interfere at all, "supportingly" or not.
I just think that while a country is under attack by the west its important to not discard the situation as an "all states are bad" or "both governments are bad" type thing, because for example screaming that while the US invades Iraq and murders hundreds of thousands of people is obviously only helping the interests of the US by legitimizing the very idea that westerners supporting or not or deeming a country good or bad is something that holds some sort of actual importance in determining which states get to exist or not.
I judge this: :haram:
The phrase may be funny but the sentiment is genuine: we critically support the DPRK.
Maybe I misunderstand you, though. If you mean it shouldn't be used in the company of liberals we're trying to persuade, then I agree. It's an in-joke among Western leftists, essentially.
Frankly, I think the DPRK is a horrible regime. It is heavily affected by the US though, and that subject can be hard to parse for libs who aren't versed in world politics.
We?
What does "not supporting" a country mean exactly and why do you as a westerner feel the right to pass this sort of judgement onto previously colonized countries that have only ever faced an existential threat from the west? Nothing grosser than this leftover settler colonialist/ imperialist mindset that the world revolves around the approval of westerners
There's a difference between not liking the functions of an imperfect state, and imposing/projecting your own idealism to how it should function. A totally valid anti-imperialist take is we should not interfere at all, "supportingly" or not.
I just think that while a country is under attack by the west its important to not discard the situation as an "all states are bad" or "both governments are bad" type thing, because for example screaming that while the US invades Iraq and murders hundreds of thousands of people is obviously only helping the interests of the US by legitimizing the very idea that westerners supporting or not or deeming a country good or bad is something that holds some sort of actual importance in determining which states get to exist or not.
I am actively plotting the overthrow of Kim Jong Un.