The Interview, Sony Hack and North Korea

[Nor'baal]

Unless it was Morgan Freeman. Or like a talking corgi.

Agreed.

And.

I am not suggesting that a film will cause a war, however I am suggesting that it could be another log on the fire that could lead to a war, which would lead to the innocent deaths - which is why people are not willing to p*** NK off.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

North Korea is ****ed up, but we also need to remember that the country is, as a practical matter, run by the military intelligentsia. Kim Jong Un is in many ways a figurehead, and the people who believe that he is a god are the oppressed, not the oppressors. This is not a state that is just crazy to its core. So while it's definitely all kinds of crazy, it's still more or less a rational actor by virtue of its status as a nation-state. They're not going to shell Seoul, because that marks the end of North Korea and any foolish dream they may have of ruling the Korean Peninsula.

 

[BLADE]

*Snips*

1. We do. As Nexus points out, the shadowy bonds of cultural control in the US are no less ubiquitous than in North Korea. Call it soft totalitarianism.

2. We also engage in the hard (teehee) kind. Or at least we sponsor it. See: Saudi Arabia, or any of our allies "in democratic transition."

3. Germany was complicit in our Mengele Emporium. Bad example.

4. Though I think you'd call that a Godwinception.

But we move on.

The whole concept of human rights, especially as wielded by Western potentates is incoherent and self-serving. What does one define as human dignity? If there are positive rights (and there are in the UN charter and the subsequent soi-dissant Universal Declarations) then how does one defend them? At what point? Keep in mind, human rights as a concept didn't take off until --according to the historiography of people like Moyn and (ick) Powers-- the 1970s, so it's not like it's this immutable concept.

But if we're simply going to be looking at actions? At cruelty and avarice? The United States, like any imperial power, is inherently immoral. Amoral, at its best. And by dint of its historical apogee relative to other periods of imperial exuberance, it is possibly the least defensible of these enterprises. Bamz has kept the historical covenant of the United States: wealth at the expense of the poor, might at the expense of the weak.

So yes. It is very hypocritical for him to say any damn thing about human rights. But not only is it hypocritical, it is dangerous as it weaponizes what is supposed to be a liberating discourse (see: George W. Bush AKA the guy whose foreign policy Barack Obama has largely continued.)

I am not suggesting that a film will cause a war, however I am suggesting that it could be another log on the fire that could lead to a war, which would lead to the innocent deaths - which is why people are not willing to p*** NK off.

Absurdly naive. The American government and its Japanese and South Korean viceroys regularly engage in brinksmanship with much larger powers like China, let alone North Korea.

I would also not underestimate the extent to which the mechanisms of the international system are controlled by sociopaths, liars and monsters. To the degree any of them care about Seoul, it's because they care about money.

This notion that we/Sony/someone nobly backed down to save lives is farcical.

 

[Phil]

So in the past few days, North Korea lost all internet for about a day and now theaters are being allowed to show The Interview if they want.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

 

[StandbyRanger]

So in the past few days, North Korea lost all internet for about a day and now theaters are being allowed to show The Interview if they want.

What a wonderful Christmas gift

 

[Vulpes]

Like I predicted, Sony has changed their decision and theaters willing to air it are now allowed to.

 

[Blaxican]

1. We do. As Nexus points out, the shadowy bonds of cultural control in the US are no less ubiquitous than in North Korea. Call it soft totalitarianism.

2. We also engage in the hard (teehee) kind. Or at least we sponsor it. See: Saudi Arabia, or any of our allies "in democratic transition."

3. Germany was complicit in our Mengele Emporium. Bad example.

4. Though I think you'd call that a Godwinception.

But we move on.

The whole concept of human rights, especially as wielded by Western potentates is incoherent and self-serving. What does one define as human dignity? If there are positive rights (and there are in the UN charter and the subsequent soi-dissant Universal Declarations) then how does one defend them? At what point? Keep in mind, human rights as a concept didn't take off until --according to the historiography of people like Moyn and (ick) Powers-- the 1970s, so it's not like it's this immutable concept.

But if we're simply going to be looking at actions? At cruelty and avarice? The United States, like any imperial power, is inherently immoral. Amoral, at its best. And by dint of its historical apogee relative to other periods of imperial exuberance, it is possibly the least defensible of these enterprises. Bamz has kept the historical covenant of the United States: wealth at the expense of the poor, might at the expense of the weak.

So yes. It is very hypocritical for him to say any damn thing about human rights. But not only is it hypocritical, it is dangerous as it weaponizes what is supposed to be a liberating discourse (see: George W. Bush AKA the guy whose foreign policy Barack Obama has largely continued.)



Absurdly naive. The American government and its Japanese and South Korean viceroys regularly engage in brinksmanship with much larger powers like China, let alone North Korea.

I would also not underestimate the extent to which the mechanisms of the international system are controlled by sociopaths, liars and monsters. To the degree any of them care about Seoul, it's because they care about money.

This notion that we/Sony/someone nobly backed down to save lives is farcical.

Sorry for the lack of reply, I've been busy turning tricks for smack over the past few days.

I see what you're saying now, but this still strikes me as a deflection. Having performed immoral acts does not carte blanche make it unethical for you to point out the bullshit that other people do- especially when the context surrounding your actions verse theirs is radically different. The United States has done a lot of shady things under the Obama administration in the name of "fighting terror", but it's a false equivalency to equate that with threatening a "9/11" proportion terrorist attack over what's basically a homoerotic romantic comedy. The United States isn't going to bomb or even threaten to bomb a North Korean movie theater because they've made a movie showing an Obama lookalike getting a gerbil shoved up his ass and then lit on fire. If this discussion was about Korea arresting foreign citizens and then torturing them into giving up "intel" that could be considered a threat against the State- then your parallel would be fitting. This isn't the case, though.

And that's not touching on the fact that the primary concern isn't even specifically about Korea (a sentiment that Obama and myself have made clear), but rather the possible, unforeseen consequences of establishing that if a movie/show/book/etc is due to be released and you don't like what its message is, getting some hacker friends together and sending a bomb threat will work in intimidating people into not releasing it. We've already seen the ripple-effect of that here, with the aforementioned banning of Team America viewings in theaters that aren't even connected to Sony and have nothing to lose from the hack. "Quick! No one say anything inflammatory about NK, lest they blow us up! =( "

That's not how this should go, imo.

So in the past few days, North Korea lost all internet for about a day and now theaters are being allowed to show The Interview if they want.

Manly.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

I see what you're saying now, but this still strikes me as a deflection. Having performed immoral acts does not carte blanche make it unethical for you to point out the bullshit that other people do- especially when the context surrounding your actions verse theirs is radically different. The United States has done a lot of shady things under the Obama administration in the name of "fighting terror", but it's a false equivalency to equate that with threatening a "9/11" proportion terrorist attack over what's basically a homoerotic romantic comedy. The United States isn't going to bomb or even threaten to bomb a North Korean movie theater because they've made a movie showing an Obama lookalike getting a gerbil shoved up his ass and then lit on fire. If this discussion was about Korea arresting foreign citizens and then torturing them into giving up "intel" that could be considered a threat against the State- then your parallel would be fitting. This isn't the case, though.

No, we'll just have our senators, representatives, administration officials, and occasionally presidents go on television and muse out loud about the various different countries we should strongly consider bombing for one reason or another.

Do we do it for such petty reasons? No, you're right about that. But we still often do it for really stupid reasons, ones that are far more dangerous than a movie that upset us.

 

[BLADE]

Sorry for the lack of reply, I've been busy turning tricks for smack over the past few days.

I see what you're saying now, but this still strikes me as a deflection. Having performed immoral acts does not carte blanche make it unethical for you to point out the bullshit that other people do- especially when the context surrounding your actions verse theirs is radically different.

Except these actions aren't radically different. One of our closest allies bans immoral movies and generally polices culture under punishment of death. And we're pretty much cool with it. Like billions of dollars in moneyz and Apache helicopters cool with it.

I should also note that when the Leader of the Free World™ makes a pronouncement in his official capacity as said leader, he is de facto assuming moral authority. Moral authority that --whatever special pleading you're making aside-- he does not have.

Pro-tip: You should also be more careful with words. I said the United States was "hypocritical" for engaging in posturing about this. Ethics is only a secondary concern, but hey, if you want to make up strawmen feel free to do so.

The United States has done a lot of shady things under the Obama administration in the name of "fighting terror",

War crimes. Crimes against humanity. That's not "shady things." Are you an exceptionalist? No? Then don't resort to euphemisms.

but it's a false equivalency to equate that with threatening a "9/11" proportion terrorist attack over what's basically a homoerotic romantic comedy.

Sure. We kill more people than North Korea does. We've inflicted the equivalent of "several dozen 9/11s" on countries which had never attacked us. By any rational measure we are way worse than North Korea.

The United States isn't going to bomb or even threaten to bomb a North Korean movie theater because they've made a movie showing an Obama lookalike getting a gerbil shoved up his ass and then lit on fire.

Because that is obviously the only parameters under which American hypocrisy with regards to freedom of speech or human rights becomes salient, no?

If this discussion was about Korea arresting foreign citizens and then torturing them into giving up "intel" that could be considered a threat against the State- then your parallel would be fitting. This isn't the case, though.

No. Your parallel would be fitting. Since I merely pointed out that we're not champions of "free speech" --which you've not defined, and neither has the President-- I'm under no obligation to abide by such an analogy.

And that's not touching on the fact that the primary concern isn't even specifically about Korea (a sentiment that Obama and myself have made clear), but rather the possible, unforeseen consequences of establishing that if a movie/show/book/etc is due to be released and you don't like what its message is, getting some hacker friends together and sending a bomb threat will work in intimidating people into not releasing it.

I've already pointed out how stupid this concern is in other posts.

We've already seen the ripple-effect of that here, with the aforementioned banning of Team America viewings in theaters that aren't even connected to Sony and have nothing to lose from the hack. "Quick! No one say anything inflammatory about NK, lest they blow us up! =( "

Yes this has obviously stopped everyone ever from making jokes about North Koreans or getting their weirdly racist and not particularly funny movie about killing a dood funded. Truly, this is the day when the rapine of Lady Freedom was completed (and it probably involved tentacles or some shit because Asian doodz amirite?)

Again, this says more about the utter brainlessness of our culture then anything else. Because what's at work here is capitalism. After all this is far from the first time movie studios have backed off of a project (sometimes in way more incipient stages) because it might offend someone. So which is more important? Free enterprise or speech? I'm a filthy hippie, so I obviously opt for the latter (depending, again on how it is defined), but that's not the argument that you, or the President or certainly any of the corporate News Media is making.

And finally, the notion that we are under threat by North Korean plays to both our racist and exceptionalist impulses. It makes us seems like free speech martyrs without ever being under threat and it gives us an edge because we are speaking truth to power (the power being an incredibly weak country thousands of miles away) about a regime of inscrutable Orientals (and these racial tropes are definitely in full force in both The Interview, and the mainstream narratives about this.) The hacking concerns --as if cyber warfare isn't an everyday occurrence in the modern world and as if the United States doesn't have something approaching dominance in this field-- simply add a soupcon of Tom Clancy thrills to what is supposed to be a sexy news story.

I get that, and I get why the media is covering it this way. But when it plays into all the stupid self-absorptions of our culture, misreads the fundamentals of the story, is totally super-racist and conveniently covers up the mal/misfeasances of the corporate giant that supposedly folded (isn't it weird how other hacking stories that don't look that good for Sony get swept under the rug) then yeah I take issue with the Howard Beal-esque rants about freedom or whatever.

Because this isn't some crusade for free speech. It's not an intelligent exegesis of our cultural landscape. This is just a bunch of self-righteous assholes panicking over a story made-up out of whole cloth by a bunch of evil corporate organizations (including the North Korean government) about a generic comedy™ product that will inevitably be released later (at mark-up no less) and whose entire cultural signifier about the Phantom Menace™ to Free Speech™(which obviously can't ever be quantified because then you'd have to apply some rigor to this nonsense) will be forgotten for whenever the next clickbait cycle of newschum comes around.

Do we do it for such petty reasons? No, you're right about that. But we still often do it for really stupid reasons, ones that are far more dangerous than a movie that upset us.

No Brandon, you don't get it. We totally invade countries and kill millions of people for totally legitimate reasons. Like making sure the steel cage you use to get to work has mildly cheaper planet-killing fuel. Or helping the derivatives desk at Morgan Stanley trade in preferred petrodollars and therefore spread a few billion dollars around like twelve guys whose body weight is fifteen percent cocaine.

You know. Nothing petty or silly like a dumb movie.

 

[Blaxican]

http://youtu.be/o9kVyJQQHxg?t=1m28s

Except these actions aren't radically different. One of our closest allies bans immoral movies and generally polices culture under punishment of death. And we're pretty much cool with it. Like billions of dollars in moneyz and Apache helicopters cool with it.

Yup that's pretty stupid, but inciting stupid oppressive laws on ones own citizens is not analogous to the events we're discussing here. Note that NK has been oppressing its own citizens forever, yet that wasn't an issue being raised in Obama's speech (nor my argument).

Pro-tip: You should also be more careful with words. I said the United States was "hypocritical" for engaging in posturing about this. Ethics is only a secondary concern, but hey, if you want to make up strawmen feel free to do so.

War crimes. Crimes against humanity. That's not "shady things." Are you an exceptionalist? No? Then don't resort to euphemisms.

Ah, delicious pedantry.

Sure. We kill more people than North Korea does. We've inflicted the equivalent of "several dozen 9/11s" on countries which had never attacked us. By any rational measure we are way worse than North Korea.

False equivalency. The context between our butchery and this event are wildly different, the [lack of] justification that context gives our shenanigans aside.

Because that is obviously the only parameters under which American hypocrisy with regards to freedom of speech or human rights becomes salient, no?

It is within the context of this discussion, yes.

My/Obama's assertion: "Countries shouldn't get this butthurt about something as trivial as a movie, and we shouldn't cave to assholes who threaten us over expressing things they don't like.

Your counter: BUT 'MURICA HAS KILLED MILLIONS IN A BULLSHIT WAR!

Correct me if I'm misrepresenting or oversimplifying your argument here.

No. Your parallel would be fitting. Since I merely pointed out that we're not champions of "free speech"

To which I responded that you don't need to be the champion of free speech to condemn others for being worse.

I've already pointed out how stupid this concern is in other posts.

I must have missed it then. Could you be a bro and reiterate it?

Yes this has obviously stopped everyone ever from making jokes about North Koreans or getting their weirdly racist and not particularly funny movie about killing a dood funded. Truly, this is the day when the rapine of Lady Freedom was completed (and it probably involved tentacles or some shit because Asian doodz amirite?)

Not sure if deliberately being obtuse, or just coffee deprived.

So which is more important? Free enterprise or speech? I'm a filthy hippie, so I obviously opt for the latter (depending, again on how it is defined), but that's not the argument that you, or the President or certainly any of the corporate News Media is making.

It's actually the exact argument being made. You're choosing to construe it as something else, but. What can one do.

And finally, the notion that we are under threat by North Korean plays to both our racist and exceptionalist impulses.

Possibly, but if anyone is to blame for presenting North Korea as a threat, it's probably the guys who tossed around threats of terrorist attacks of 9/11 proportions (read: Korea).

That aside, what is this massive North Korea fear-mongering propaganda-machine you're referring to? I've said, probably about 5 times now, that the issue isn't specific to NK at all, but rather to anyone who thinks that terrorist threats are an effective way to censor people. Obama certainly did not paint Korea as the Great Evil either. The three points of his speech were that (a) US intel points to NK being responsible for the hack and threat, (b) the US would retaliate, and (c) Sony was wrong for folding under the pressure of the threats due to the precedence would create. If anything, his tone during the speech about the hack/threat bordered on indifference, as if he was talking about an annoying fly.

Where exactly in this speech is Obama lionizing Korea as a threat to 'murican security?

(isn't it weird how other hacking stories that don't look that good for Sony get swept under the rug)

Depends. How many of those hacks proceeded terrorist threats?

This is just a bunch of self-righteous assholes panicking over a story made-up out of whole cloth by a bunch of evil corporate organizations (including the North Korean government)

If it was made-up by the North Koreans (which apparently it was), then it's not really made up lol. A terrorist threat is, in fact, a threat- whether the individuals throwing down the gauntlet have the actual capabilities or intention or not. So I agree that North Korea overreacted (I have in fact asserted this several times), and that Sony overreacted (I have in fact asserted this several times), but you haven't adequately explained why my assertion and Obama's assertion (which is that Sony and NK overreacted) are... overreactions.

 

[BLADE]

http://youtu.be/o9kVyJQQHxg?t=1m28s

Yup that's pretty stupid, but inciting stupid oppressive laws on ones own citizens is not analogous to the events we're discussing here. Note that NK has been oppressing its own citizens forever, yet that wasn't an issue being raised in Obama's speech (nor my argument).

It's hypocritical. Hence when Bamz said:

"That's not who we are. That's not what America is about."

He was lying, because that is pretty much what this country is about. You want to make some specious points about the crimes not being exactly equal (and therefore not at all comparable, unless North Korea is worse, in which case compare away) which makes you a vaguely more slippery neocon type.

Ah, delicious pedantry.

Words matter. Later on you assert that there's a different context.

False equivalency. The context between our butchery and this event are wildly different, the [lack of] justification that context gives our shenanigans aside.

How so? Both serve the interest of a narrow ruling class. In North Korea, Un's Lèse-majesté serves to perpetuate his power (and by the way nobody has died because of this The Interview nonsense as of yet) whilst our policies that killed several million in the Middle East serve to enrich our own ruling class. North Korea doesn't get style points because President Obama has a sense of humor?

It is within the context of this discussion, yes.

Context isn't a magical argument, dear heart. What is the context? Define it. Quantify it. Because you're basically spinning some tales to justify some non-existent moral superiority over North Korea. And that's the sad thing. When people are pushed about this, they really can't point to concrete ways in which we are better than literally the worst people on Earth.

My/Obama's assertion: "Countries shouldn't get this butthurt about something as trivial as a movie, and we shouldn't cave to assholes who threaten us over expressing things they don't like.

Your counter: BUT 'MURICA HAS KILLED MILLIONS IN A BULLSHIT WAR!

Correct me if I'm misrepresenting or oversimplifying your argument here.

*Rolls eyes*

It's not a particularly difficult argument: America is no better than North Korea. As an aside, I found it nauseating when a war criminal (Bamz) preened self-righteously that we don't do that because:

"That's not who we are. That's not what America is about."

To which I responded that you don't need to be the champion of free speech to condemn others for being worse.

North Korea is no worse on free speech. Look at the regimes we prop up. More people around the world are silenced with American-funded or built weapons than are oppressed within North Korea. This is --pace context-- something that we can actually quantify and measure, not your sophistic nonsense.

I must have missed it then. Could you be a bro and reiterate it?

Literally the first post you derped in response to. I was nice about it and made a funny but now you're making me worry about just how much of a given post of mine you actually do read.

Not sure if deliberately being obtuse, or just coffee deprived.

This is how I know you're being dishonest. People on this very thread have worried about the sort of precedent this sets, and I pointed out we are awash in a culture that makes fun of North Korea (which is a good thing.)

It's actually the exact argument being made. You're choosing to construe it as something else, but. What can one do.

You're a lying liar who lies:

My/Obama's assertion: "Countries shouldn't get this butthurt about something as trivial as a movie, and we shouldn't cave to assholes who threaten us over expressing things they don't like.

That doesn't posit any kind of tension between free enterprise and free speech. That in fact essentially does make it about countries using cyber-warfare (something which you twatted about literally two posts ago.) It very lightly touches on free speech --because again what is more important enterprise or speech(which you still haven't defined)?-- but it elides over the antidemocratic impulses inherent to capitalism, a system which this country is the standard-bearer for. Now, I certainly don't expect the figurehead of said murderous capitalism to be Noam Chomsky, but I don't think it's too much to ask at least some people on here to cop to that antilogy.

Possibly, but if anyone is to blame for presenting North Korea as a threat, it's probably the guys who tossed around threats of terrorist attacks of 9/11 proportions (read: Korea).

Right, because it's not like I explicitly mentioned a dynamic where both parties create and benefit from a climate of fear. I mean, it would never be in North Korea's interest to be seen as a strong country threatening the Capitalist Oppressor.

That aside, what is this massive North Korea fear-mongering propaganda-machine you're referring to?

CNN, NPR, MSNBC, FOX News, Senator John McCain (one of the most powerful members of the now majority party in the Senate), etc.

I've said, probably about 5 times now, that the issue isn't specific to NK at all, but rather to anyone who thinks that terrorist threats are an effective way to censor people.

Yes, a thread titled "The Interview, Sony Hack and North Korea" and the stuff I was responding to and which you tried to engage in a pathetic hit and run over a throwaway line definitely has nothing to do with North Korea.

Obama certainly did not paint Korea as the Great Evil either. The three points of his speech were that (a) US intel points to NK being responsible for the hack and threat, (b) the US would retaliate,

Your summation of his speech literally says that two-thirds of the speech involves what North Korea did and how we intend to pound them. And in any case, if you actually read what I wrote, you'll note I wasn't referring to Bamz.

and (c) Sony was wrong for folding under the pressure of the threats due to the precedence would create. If anything, his tone during the speech about the hack/threat bordered on indifference, as if he was talking about an annoying fly.

Where exactly in this speech is Obama lionizing Korea as a threat to 'murican security?

You're being super-cute (and lying) again because I explicitly mentioned that people on this thread (and in the wider culture) were panicking about North Korea. Give Obama credit on style points. The man is generally cool.

Depends. How many of those hacks proceeded terrorist threats?

It's literally part and parcel of the information that was hacked and that this threat was attached to. Come on now. Try harder.

If it was made-up by the North Koreans (which apparently it was), then it's not really made up lol.

So why is Bamz indifferent, as you describe? What actual threat does North Korea pose? So far their best gambit seems to be mildly embarrassing a (Japanese) media conglomerate.

A terrorist threat is, in fact, a threat- whether the individuals throwing down the gauntlet have the actual capabilities or intention or not.

Ohai Dick Cheney

So I agree that North Korea overreacted (I have in fact asserted this several times), and that Sony overreacted (I have in fact asserted this several times), but you haven't adequately explained why my assertion and Obama's assertion (which is that Sony and NK overreacted) are... overreactions.

I've already stated that many people and the news media are overreacting and didn't mention anything about the US government (though of course Mssrs. McCain and Graham are having a panic-down.) As far as President Obama, I expressed my disgust that every time some other country does something bad we have to piously lecture them as if we're not just as terrible. I also noted our history with censorship, mused on how this doesn't change much as far as cyber warfare is concerned, talked about soft totalitarianism, etc.

You seem to have given up the ghost on most other arguments other than desperately trying to find some technical difference between "torture, terrorism, and suppression of civil society" and... "torture, terrorism, and suppression of civil society."

It's a weird argument because you've done a shitty job of making it --other than waving around the word "context" like a talisman-- and lie about me accusing President Obama of being hysterical (really the issue is way broader and more everyone's fault.)

Good luck, I suppose, with all that.

 

[Vulpes]

For a fee, also available on youtube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ed2kSuKqfz0

 

[Blaxican]

Christmas haitus. I'll respond in a few days.

In the mean time, happy White Jesus Day everyone.