No. I'm by no means an expert, but there's tons of resources online and offline that aren't memes or the U.S. State Department. Even just reading the sources on Wikipedia isn't usually a bad start
You mean the sources like Radio Free Asia? Lol.
No. If anything Anarchists are the leftists who actually do stuff like organize mutual aid networks or at the very least squat vacant properties of the rich
More than 100 years of activity, and all that western anarchists have managed to achieve is get supported by the FBI to disrupt socialist movements as part of COINTELPRO and to become a machine for regurgitation of USian anti-communist propaganda.
No. Where did I simp for any country here?
Here:
So the US is better off in that regard, I'd much rather live there and their government positions align more with my own and I'm anti-China and "anti-authoritarian" in that sense, but still a socialist.
You claim that the positions of the US government are more aligned with yours than the positions of a government that has not started any wars in more than 40 years, and which has been a victim of colonialism of NATO states (including Japan, which is de facto a NATO state), and which has been (one of, if not) the most successful state in the world in terms of improving the living standards of working-class people.
By your own admission, your positions are more similar to those of a state that has been the most prolific aggressor in the world for a century or so, which has been carrying out genocide after genocide, and which has also been engaging in colonialism, than to those of a state that has not started a war in more than 40 years, that has been at the forefront of production of green energy units, that has been the most successful at improving the living standards of working-class people in the world.
Either explain yourself, admit to having been wrong, or admit to being a supporter of genocides and colonialism.
No, again, where did I do that?
Have you changed your position on the PRC, then? Or do you want to both claim that you find the positions of your genocidal empire align more with your positions than those of the PRC, and that the PRC is not the absolute evil that your empire claims it to be?
Also, on this note, I'd like to ask if you support the states (and state-like polities) that have been victims of your empire's colonialism in their struggle against your empire's colonialism? This includes such boogeymen as the DPRK, Hamas, and, to a much lesser extent, Russia (where, again, NATO killed millions via shock therapy legislature which it took part in designing).
No. I decry authoritarian overreach wherever I see it, be it the US or China
Sure, you say that, but then you go 'therefore, I support the US', which you have already admitted to. Again, what you said is already saved, there is no use denying or hiding that.
Instead of liberation of the vast majority of the world from your yoke, you claim that third world countries are evil, authoritarian, and barbarous, and that, therefore, the victims of NATO colonialism should remain victims of NATO colonialism.
It's extremely likely that out of the sides of the Korean war, you support the US and its colonial government set up in the parts of Korea occupied by it. You support the killing of millions of Koreans and flattening of their homes during that war. Because the exceedingly popular movement that arose from trade unions was 'authoritarian'. You likely complain about the DPRK today as well, because the victims of your colonialism are 'authoritarian', while ignoring the conditions in which they have to exist (in particular, the threat of your empire which killed millions of them when it invaded last time and destroyed most of the country).
You likely also support the European colonial government of South Vietnam, and have an issue with the victims of your colonialism, again, being 'authoritarian', while ignoring the conditions in which they have to exist.
You likely also support the blockade and the attempted invasion Cuba by your empire, because of Cuba being 'authoritarian', while ignoring both the fact that they have probably the most pro-LGBT legislature in the world right now, and while ignoring the conditions in which they have to exist.
You likely also support NATO's collaboration with Guomindang and the RoC, despite them enacting white terror in Taiwan, killing dissenters, and establishing a very authoritarian dictatorship in Taiwan. After all, you did say that you are more aligned with your empire under which that happened than with the state that the Guomindang fought against.
You probably also support NATO's invasions and the killing of millions in Iraq, as well as the invasion and two decades of active warfare in Afghanistan, because the states of those countries are 'authoritarian'. After all, you are more aligned with the empire that did that than with the state that hasn't started any wars in more than 40 years.
You likely also support NATO transforming Libya from a country with the highest HDI in Africa into a haven for open-air slave markets. Because not allowing slavers a free reign is so 'authoritarian'.
I'd be happy to be proven wrong about you supporting all of that, but then I'd like to ask you, in what way are you more aligned with your empire than with the PRC?
in context of LGBT issues, things are worse in China than the US, but the last century of US' imperialist foreign policy where it imposed it's will on the globe are all horrifically awful things too
You are saying this as if the issues with LGBT rights in the PRC are anywhere close to being as bad as what the US has done throughout its history (starting with the whole settler-colonialism stuff in the Americas as an organ of the British polities).
Again, either the positions of the US government are NOT aligned more with yours than those of the PRC, or you think that the US having a bit better situation with regards to LGBT rights for USians (for now, at least, considering that there is more of a push against LGBT rights in the US than in the PRC, as far as I can see) outweighs the fact that the US has been the most prolific killer and torturer of people around the globe, which includes LGBT people. And yes, this means that if the latter is the case, your positions are that killing LGBT people in the third world is fine so long as your empire gives you a bribe.
It's like some folks just cannot comprehend that you don't have to simp for any empires at all, and you can critique them all at once
Cool. But you go further. You equivocate victims of your empire's colonialism with the perpetrators of said colonialism. Worse yet, there is at least one case where you have come out and said that your positions are more aligned with those of the perpetrators of colonialism rather than with those of the victims.
If you think that I don't have criticism of states like the USSR or the PRC, then you are incorrect. I, however, do not think that my own well-being is something that is more valuable than the well-being of other people, and I also don't make claims like 'I support the most prolific genocidal force in the world more than a state that hasn't started a war in more than 40 years and which has not perpetrated any genocides'.
No. In fact it is the exact opposite
So, either what you are saying now is true, or what you said before - about the positions of the US government being closer to yours - is true. Which is it?
I know trans folks, I understand our struggles here in the west and I do not think of trans folks in China as being some 'other' who must enjoy being under the boot of oppressive, backwards laws, I have nothing but solidarity and support for them in achieving liberation just as we aim for here
If you wanted solidarity with them, you wouldn't be supporting the US government, which has been trying to induce economic crises in the PRC and which has been trying to spark a war with the PRC.
Furthermore, the US is the most prolific killer of LGBT people by virtue of just how many people it has been killing around the world. Do you think that the LGBT people of the world should enjoy being under the boot and bomb of the US?
I do not want to be presumptive, but frankly if anything this view that you have seems to be of someone who hasn't traveled much, which is totally fine, neither have I really, it is a purposeful injustice that few people have the means to do so, but from my experiences traveling, people are people, and they are mostly the same everywhere, most working people want the same things and there is nothing wrong with being critical of the forces of capital or religion or governments that transcend borders and require international solidarity from us
I never had enough resources to travel much, but I did not need that to come to the very simple conclusion that people are people everywhere, especially considering that where I'm from is not an ethnically - or, for that matter, religiously - homogenous place.
If you actually want international solidarity, then you shouldn't support what is literally the most prolific genocidal force in the world.
You mean the sources like Radio Free Asia? Lol.
More than 100 years of activity, and all that western anarchists have managed to achieve is get supported by the FBI to disrupt socialist movements as part of COINTELPRO and to become a machine for regurgitation of USian anti-communist propaganda.
Here:
You claim that the positions of the US government are more aligned with yours than the positions of a government that has not started any wars in more than 40 years, and which has been a victim of colonialism of NATO states (including Japan, which is de facto a NATO state), and which has been (one of, if not) the most successful state in the world in terms of improving the living standards of working-class people.
By your own admission, your positions are more similar to those of a state that has been the most prolific aggressor in the world for a century or so, which has been carrying out genocide after genocide, and which has also been engaging in colonialism, than to those of a state that has not started a war in more than 40 years, that has been at the forefront of production of green energy units, that has been the most successful at improving the living standards of working-class people in the world.
Either explain yourself, admit to having been wrong, or admit to being a supporter of genocides and colonialism.
Have you changed your position on the PRC, then? Or do you want to both claim that you find the positions of your genocidal empire align more with your positions than those of the PRC, and that the PRC is not the absolute evil that your empire claims it to be?
Also, on this note, I'd like to ask if you support the states (and state-like polities) that have been victims of your empire's colonialism in their struggle against your empire's colonialism? This includes such boogeymen as the DPRK, Hamas, and, to a much lesser extent, Russia (where, again, NATO killed millions via shock therapy legislature which it took part in designing).
Sure, you say that, but then you go 'therefore, I support the US', which you have already admitted to. Again, what you said is already saved, there is no use denying or hiding that.
Instead of liberation of the vast majority of the world from your yoke, you claim that third world countries are evil, authoritarian, and barbarous, and that, therefore, the victims of NATO colonialism should remain victims of NATO colonialism.
It's extremely likely that out of the sides of the Korean war, you support the US and its colonial government set up in the parts of Korea occupied by it. You support the killing of millions of Koreans and flattening of their homes during that war. Because the exceedingly popular movement that arose from trade unions was 'authoritarian'. You likely complain about the DPRK today as well, because the victims of your colonialism are 'authoritarian', while ignoring the conditions in which they have to exist (in particular, the threat of your empire which killed millions of them when it invaded last time and destroyed most of the country).
You likely also support the European colonial government of South Vietnam, and have an issue with the victims of your colonialism, again, being 'authoritarian', while ignoring the conditions in which they have to exist. You likely also support the blockade and the attempted invasion Cuba by your empire, because of Cuba being 'authoritarian', while ignoring both the fact that they have probably the most pro-LGBT legislature in the world right now, and while ignoring the conditions in which they have to exist. You likely also support NATO's collaboration with Guomindang and the RoC, despite them enacting white terror in Taiwan, killing dissenters, and establishing a very authoritarian dictatorship in Taiwan. After all, you did say that you are more aligned with your empire under which that happened than with the state that the Guomindang fought against. You probably also support NATO's invasions and the killing of millions in Iraq, as well as the invasion and two decades of active warfare in Afghanistan, because the states of those countries are 'authoritarian'. After all, you are more aligned with the empire that did that than with the state that hasn't started any wars in more than 40 years. You likely also support NATO transforming Libya from a country with the highest HDI in Africa into a haven for open-air slave markets. Because not allowing slavers a free reign is so 'authoritarian'.
I'd be happy to be proven wrong about you supporting all of that, but then I'd like to ask you, in what way are you more aligned with your empire than with the PRC?
You are saying this as if the issues with LGBT rights in the PRC are anywhere close to being as bad as what the US has done throughout its history (starting with the whole settler-colonialism stuff in the Americas as an organ of the British polities).
Again, either the positions of the US government are NOT aligned more with yours than those of the PRC, or you think that the US having a bit better situation with regards to LGBT rights for USians (for now, at least, considering that there is more of a push against LGBT rights in the US than in the PRC, as far as I can see) outweighs the fact that the US has been the most prolific killer and torturer of people around the globe, which includes LGBT people. And yes, this means that if the latter is the case, your positions are that killing LGBT people in the third world is fine so long as your empire gives you a bribe.
Cool. But you go further. You equivocate victims of your empire's colonialism with the perpetrators of said colonialism. Worse yet, there is at least one case where you have come out and said that your positions are more aligned with those of the perpetrators of colonialism rather than with those of the victims.
If you think that I don't have criticism of states like the USSR or the PRC, then you are incorrect. I, however, do not think that my own well-being is something that is more valuable than the well-being of other people, and I also don't make claims like 'I support the most prolific genocidal force in the world more than a state that hasn't started a war in more than 40 years and which has not perpetrated any genocides'.
So, either what you are saying now is true, or what you said before - about the positions of the US government being closer to yours - is true. Which is it?
If you wanted solidarity with them, you wouldn't be supporting the US government, which has been trying to induce economic crises in the PRC and which has been trying to spark a war with the PRC.
Furthermore, the US is the most prolific killer of LGBT people by virtue of just how many people it has been killing around the world. Do you think that the LGBT people of the world should enjoy being under the boot and bomb of the US?
I never had enough resources to travel much, but I did not need that to come to the very simple conclusion that people are people everywhere, especially considering that where I'm from is not an ethnically - or, for that matter, religiously - homogenous place.
If you actually want international solidarity, then you shouldn't support what is literally the most prolific genocidal force in the world.