No? I just said that China's trans policy is awful and backwards and my solidarity goes to those who suffer from it in China and that the US is better in that respect.
And I can just as easily point out that the US was much worse and more backwards not at all long ago. And the US has seemingly been experiencing much more of a backwards push than the PRC.
US imperialism is awful and the past half-century of exploitation and subjugation by the US is also terrible. One does not exclude the other
One of these things, however, is unambiguously much, much worse than the other.
On that front, I am indeed more aligned with the US than China, but it doesn't mean I don't also hate the US
Okay, can you explicitly come out and say that your positions overall are more aligned with those of the PRC than with those of the US?
Because I support trans rights?
The US kills trans people and other LGBT people in the third world. You seem to be more fine with that than with the PRC giving trans people a somewhat subpar package of rights.
I'm fundamentally, as an anarchist - not fine with the US or China. It's in the name.
So, are you more fine with the rest of the world fighting for liberation from you, even if it is done using states (I'm going to note that anarchists have not had much success fighting for anybody's liberation anywhere, to my knowledge - this is the best that people around the world have managed so far; I'm also going to note that anarchist organisation fundamentally sacrifices military capabilities, which are necessary in the world's liberation from NATO), or are you going to engage in equivocation between NATO and its victims?
If it's the former, then I take most of what I said back. If it's the latter, my points stand, as equivocation between the perpetrators of colonialism, genocides, etc. and their victims is, in effect, support for the former.
See? I'm not some imperialist stooge or a jingoistic patriot and I'm happy to praise China where it's due.
Alright, so can you come out and explicitly say that your positions are overall more aligned with the Global South than with NATO?
And I can just as easily point out that the US was much worse and more backwards not at all long ago. And the US has seemingly been experiencing much more of a backwards push than the PRC.
One of these things, however, is unambiguously much, much worse than the other.
Okay, can you explicitly come out and say that your positions overall are more aligned with those of the PRC than with those of the US?
The US kills trans people and other LGBT people in the third world. You seem to be more fine with that than with the PRC giving trans people a somewhat subpar package of rights.
So, are you more fine with the rest of the world fighting for liberation from you, even if it is done using states (I'm going to note that anarchists have not had much success fighting for anybody's liberation anywhere, to my knowledge - this is the best that people around the world have managed so far; I'm also going to note that anarchist organisation fundamentally sacrifices military capabilities, which are necessary in the world's liberation from NATO), or are you going to engage in equivocation between NATO and its victims?
If it's the former, then I take most of what I said back. If it's the latter, my points stand, as equivocation between the perpetrators of colonialism, genocides, etc. and their victims is, in effect, support for the former.
Alright, so can you come out and explicitly say that your positions are overall more aligned with the Global South than with NATO?