I guess this is going to have to get split into sections.
Also, funny how you only focused on the teeniest part of my argument and ignore the meat of it. Why don't you comment on how UK-USA relations are the same as USA-North Korean relations, since you obviously think they're so similar. Or comment on how Americans would act if North Korea did indeed put out a similar movie. Of course not, but I'm not going to get into a pissing contest with you over this tiny point.
Alright, before this goes any further, let me explain how a debate with me works. I view a debate as an opportunity to exchange contrary views about interesting topics, not as some pathetic and childish exercise in point scoring in a futile attempt to "win". As such I feel little need to waste life dissecting a pointless hypothetical that doesn't interest me.
If I wanted to wave my debate penis around I could - I'd just point you towards the legions of anti-America films churned out by Russian cinema that you've never heard of because nobody gives a shit. Maybe Strangers, a movie about Americans terrorising the Middle East, falsely advertised to audiences as being both factual, and outlawed in the US. Obviously it wasn't banned in the US on account of nobody giving a shit, as I stated.
Or I could always point you towards "Anti-USA". A North Korean movie that you've never heard of owing to, wait for it, nobody giving a shit when it was made.
Most Americans can't be persuaded to give a shit when a rival
world leader stands up and attacks their country, but you think they'll lose their shit and begin a campaign of cyber terrorism if it's done via the medium of a movie? No comment.
Was that the kind of response you were hoping for? Can I move on to something interesting now?
When did I ever say that North Korea was not brutal and dangerous? I said they were not "mentally unstable", as you want to put it, solely because of the regime they live in.
I suspect that we're actually rather closer on this topic than you've interpreted. Read the quote you're responding to again, you'll notice that I do not call the Koreans "mentally unstable" as you seem to think. I use those words to refer to the nation state - which in a place like North Korea translates to the government. Not the most eloquent phrase I've ever spun possibly, but that's where I think the confusion has arisen from.
The people probably do the best they can, keep their heads down and focus on raising their kids and trying to to get killed - just like everywhere else in the world. The state in contrast is dangerous and unbalanced enough that a comparison to insanity is not remotely out of line.
You want to know a big reason for the "instability" of North Korea? Look no farther than the almighty USA. Try to follow along. Here's a country, along with the Russians, that occupied another country (Korea) that were basically forced into war by the Japanese (WW2). After the war, the Soviets occupied the North and the Americans the South of Korea, effectively splitting the nation in two in more ways than one. Communists (North) against democrats (South) led to extreme massacres, wars, and violence between the two sides and what did the two superpowers at the time do? They left them in their turmoil, unstable, with no real conclusion in site. Even better, the Americans and Soviets used the Korean War as a proxy war to fight their own battles during the Cold War, which quite obviously, created even more instability. Honestly, it's easy to just look at a country and say, "Yeah they're savage, they're backwards, they're mentally unstable", without looking at the reasons why. The Americans came in, ravaged the entire country, split it in half, and than decided to leave the Koreans to the mess that THEY created. Yet it's the Koreans that are terrible, terrible people for targeting America.
I think you might want to check your history a little but. The big bad Americans have at no point in human history occupied or had control over the North. The Korean empire was annexed by the Japanese about 100 years ago. The Japanese ceded the territory post WW2, and the Americans and the Soviets agreed to administer half the country each with the intention of establishing a unified independent Korea soon after. America took the south, which became one of the more prosperous and liberal societies in the region, whilst the Soviets took the north, where they still think gulags are a good idea.
Obviously the cold war happened, so the US passed the responsibility over to the UN, and pretty much fucked off. They withdrew almost all their military personnel from the south and left the country as far to its own devices as anyone was during the Cold War, which seems to be what you are blaming them for? The Korean war was initiated by the Soviet sponsored north of the country, all the US did was repel it and then piss off again. Is your argument that the antics of the North Korean regime are excusable because big bad America didn't allow them to invade to south? Because my pointless conjecture is that, had that happened, we'd still have North Korea, it'd just be a bigger country with a slightly shorter name.
The US are second only to the British in their ability to fuck up the world - but holding them responsible for, or using them as a mitigating excuse to justify, the northern regime's concentration camps and state sponsored child murder is unfair, short sighted and doesn't really hold up to historical scrutiny.
