- cross-posted to:
- chat
You must log in or register to comment.
yeah vulgar anti americanism will get you farther than "nuanced" liberalism ever could
Maybe correct by correctly determining the "good guy" and "bad guy" in conflicts, but that's extremely shallow and limits further analysis. It's not enough for a framework to just avoid giving wrong answers, it has to give answers that mean something.
I'm an Americanist, I do believe the peoples of America should throw off their shackles and unite with the rest of the continent into a federation of socialist autonomous republics.
On second thought, the USA is irreparable and will never, ever do something cool and good.
The problem that I have with people who I'd call "way too into anti-Americanism" isn't that they hate America and assume they're the bad guy, but that they end up thinking the opposing forces are the good guy. Like, more than critical support, they actually think Assad is good, or whoever else. That's the point where I'm like, "ok wait, chill, calm down, please reconsider".
Oh, and the "Rojava bad for accepting US support" thing, that too. Fuck that shit.
You know what? Saddam was a whole other league of bastard but if you spent your Bush years going “the war is bad but Saddam is also bad” then you were no better then every fucking liberal who just kept talking about how we’re butchering innocent Iraqi’s the wrong way, and that we should do it the smarter way.
Poignant. Am remembering this for the next time I make an opinion on geopolitics. Thank you, internet stranger
I'm not both sidesing. Assad is bad, the US is significantly worse.
But if you think there's literally noone who thinks Assad is good because they're so high on hating any opposition to US Imperialism, you're wrong. I've encountered them. I also know plenty of people who critically support Assad against US Imperialism, which is the correct political line. In fact there are more of those people than there are sincere Assad likers. But the sincere Assad likers do still exist, to deny that is just silly.
Saying one thing is bad and the other thing is significantly worse is definitionally not both sidesing lmao.
ETA: If you think this shit is any different than liberals using whataboutism as a thought terminating cliche, you're wrong. It is in fact possible to criticize bad things and recognize that another thing is significantly worse. Notice I keep using the word significantly? It's not even close. But yeah, OK, just downvote without saying anything. What I said above is literally true. It is not both sidesing to acknowledge degrees of evil. Both sidesing is saying two things are exactly the same. That is, the literal definition. I'd love to see any of you actually explain how it isn't.
Well, I'm autistic, so I need feedback for things I say and being downvoted with NOONE replying to explain what I'm wrong about kind of fucks me up. So please don't?
You didn't know that, but also I think not giving feedback is rude as hell even if you're talking to an NT.
