Tomorrow_Farewell [any, they/them]

Historically they’ve only happened when a country reached a point where there were was no other recourse

Hindsight 20/20 or something like that.
I am very confident that you would not be saying this about the Russian Empire in its later years.

Our democracy has not collapsed

Yours is a “democracy” of slavers and genocidaires, quite literally. If it hasn’t collapsed, it should.

Elections still happen - we’ll likely be seeing a major power shift in the midterms

Elections are not a viable instrument for effecting relevant change. You are not even presented with relevant choices.

My greater fear is what will happen after we’ve “won.” I fear what we will do. Because if you think the answer is “put down our weapons” then you haven’t read the third act of many revolutions in history

Socialist revolutions have historically been very successful in improving their people’s living standards. Why would one “fear” that?

I recommend you acquaint yourself with actual history instead of repeating myths. Socialist revolutions have shown themselves to be a very reliable way of improving their people’s living standards.

Our democracy has not been dismantled

If you want to claim to have a democracy, you admit that the invaders of Iraq and Afghanistan, the enslavers of Libya, the genocidaires of Palestine represent your interests, and that you are opposed to the liberation of the world from them.

Diplomatic options remain available to us

Like what?
And remember, these options should not be ignorable by them. There should be a cost that could be enforced upon them if they decide to not agree to demands.

We’re very likely going to see a shift in power come midterms

I highly doubt that. I predict that there will be no shift in power and that your leadership will still just be the red-blue uniparty the way it has been for more than a century.

The overwhelming majority of the people I’ve killed deserved to die. But war isn’t that cut and dried

Let me guess, you were an invader into either Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, or somewhere else, and you killed people who were defending against your invasion, weren’t you?
Edit: Seems like you admit to having been a colonial invader. In what world do the people you have killed “deserved to die”?

The scenario where we address the problems we’re having without a revolution remains drastically superior and preferable to the scenario where we must fight a revolution

That scenario that you find preferable is simply not feasible. You have no way of stopping capitalism and colonialism by just politely asking the people that are economically interested in inflicting those horrors upon the world.

You don’t see Salvador Allende’s genocide

First, you were asserting that they were an apologist for Pinochet. Now, you are claiming that Salvador Allende committed a genocide.

Can you at least name a year when that supposed genocide happened, and what groups were the target of that genocide?

Where is the denial?

At this point you should just admit that none of what you asserted was going on.

For example we objectively know that most of the claims against Stalin were falsified. Not to say he was perfect but even the CIA admits they falsefied it.

What supposed genocides are they being an apologist of here?

Apologia B: Salvador Allende was a great democratic socialist who supposedly did everything right and look what happened to him Apologia

What? Salvador Allende is not Pinochet, and Pinochet was opposed to him. You do know that Pinochet was the one to overthrow Allende, right?
How can this even be interpreted as support for Pinochet?

Apologia C: [President Biden image captioned with “No, I don’t think I will.”]

That’s not even Biden, nor is there any genocide apologia going on there.

It’s also doing exercises in Japan

Ah, so you did engage in trickery by claiming that the PRC is the aggressor in this case when you were, in fact, talking about NATO blockading the PRC’s sea access.

… Malaysia, Philippines

Do you have sources with regards to the PRC “demanding” their shores and “sea routes”?

Jorunn did, not I

But you are the one making the assertion here as if you believe it. So, either you can list them, or you are just being obviously bad faith.

Did kittenzrulz123 lie to you or something?

What are you even talking about here?

Well, right now PRC is still aggressively demanding shores and sea routes of other nations.

Your link seems to be to a wrong page, as it doesn’t lead to any sort of explanation on what shores and sea routes are supposedly being demanded. Are you talking about NATO blockading the PRC’s sea access and formulating that as if the PRC is the aggressor in this case?

I have seen some documentaries on mistreatment of Uyghurs

Okay? You can see documentaries claiming whatever their makers want. They don’t have to satisfy any sort of proof standards.

As it stands, not even your empire’s leadership believes that, so, to assert this, you have to know more than the most expensive military and spy operation in the world.

but I am talking about kittenzrulz123’s own genocide apologetics

What genocides were they supposedly being an apologist for?

Stalin

What genocides do you think Stalin committed?

What’s the issue in those screenshots? What genocides were they supposedly being an apologist/denialist for there?

Such ‘order and stability’ that they have a full-blown galaxy-wide rebellion organised against them (without involvement of the CIA or any other of NATO’s parts).

I would like to ask people who dislike this: what do you actually disagree with here?

Firstly, going to note that you have not explained what a state should do in such a situation.

So, your argument is that you a priori expect NATO to never invade a nuclear-armed state, even though we already have a posteriori confirmation that NATO was trying to start a war with Russia, and has done things like try to occupy Kursk, as well as perfidiously either using civilians for military actions or masquerading military forces as civilians, as well as drone strike civilians?

Sure, nuclear weapons do make NATO act more cautiously, but let’s not ignore that it has historically been very willing to take aggressive action against the USSR and its allies after the USSR developed and produced nuclear weapons.

Not sure what you are trying to claim here, or where you even encountered arguments based on Russia’s historical connection to socialism.

Also, I would love to hear your opinion on what a state should do when the most prolific invader in the world tries to amass weapons and military personnel on that state’s borders.

You are suggesting they are denied housing. What other ‘solutions’ are there other than to force them to live on the streets?

Guaranteed housing is a policy that got implemented by a few states. Those states have consistently been the most successful states in terms of improving their people’s living standards.

A state not implementing guaranteed housing is a state that decides to harm its people by forcing them to live on the streets.

Going to note again that you are still avoiding the question of what should be done against the empire’s aggression by the rest of the world.
Going to ask again - what should states do in such situations?

You understand the concept of mutually assured destruction right?

Which isn’t exactly a law of nature and doesn’t actually mean that NATO will definitely not attack you. Like we literally see it doing so against Russia. Hell, NATO did take hostile action against the USSR (and its allies like Cuba), a state that was much better-prepared than Russia.

Not sure why you are even bringing this up.

And what’s crazy about all those countries you’ve listed is none of them have nuclear arms.

The DPRK does have nukes, and NATO still carried out a small-scale attack against it recently.

Sure, having nukes makes NATO less capable of attacking head-on, but that is an irrelevant argument when we actually already have the knowledge that it has taken hostile action against a country, deliberately so.

You also seem to be overestimating the willingness of nuclear-armed states to use those weapons.

Firstly, going to note that you still have not produced a serious alternative (your previous suggestion is simply to give more advantages to the most prolific invader in the world) and are still avoiding the question of how a state should approach described aggression.

So, you think America is going to invade Russia

NATO has already admitted to have started the war with Russia on purpose, and NATO has been striking Russian civilians, and has done a failed invasion in the Kursk oblast.

two nuclear armed nations?

So, if a state has nukes, you consider it okay for NATO to attack them?

Or did you think a country the size of Ukraine was going to do it first?

This is a bizarre question, considering that Ukraine isn’t the sole de facto part of NATO, and isn’t even sovereign. It is wholly subjugated by NATO since 2014, and does not make its own decisions.
Ukraine is also obviously not limited to the resources it would be limited to if it wasn’t a glorified NATO military base.

Why would Ukraine NATO invade exactly?

For the same reason NATO has been invading everywhere else, like in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Vietnam, Palestine, Korea, etc. - colonial subjugation of the rest of the world.

whataboutism

People who use the word ‘whataboutism’ unironically (i.e. when their hypocrisy is called out) are silly, should be disregarded, and should not be politically empowered.
This is especially silly after you tried to claim that the enslaver of Libya was good.

All you can do is whataboutism and distraction.

What am I distracting anybody from in this case? From the ‘strategy’ that your empire has convinced you of being fruitful, despite it yielding no results beneficial to the oppressed?

You can point out every failure in shortcoming of the so-called left of the US government and it doesn’t fucking matter. They’re still to the left of the right.

This is like saying that if one doesn’t support, say, Ernst Röhm, they are somehow bad, and that it doesn’t matter that he has “shortcomings”.

They are not to the left of the right. They are on the right. They have the same policies, and you can’t even claim that they are in opposition to the other part of your uniparty, as they literally fund their election candidates.
The only difference is aesthetics.

There’s still a discernible difference.

Which is what, exactly?

Some things improve sometimes when one party gets into office

The negotiation for the removal of NATO’s troops from Afghanistan was negotiated under Trump, which is more than what I can say about the blue fascists.
Meanwhile, the other party’s administration undid the legal precedent for abortions that they promised to put in the constitution.

and most things get worse when the other gets in power.

You mean how the ICE usage got worse under Obomber to the point where each of his individual terms saw the most prolific usage of them? Or how his state enslaved Libya?

In the meantime, voting is still better than not.

You are so insistent, but are yet to provide proof of that in the context of the US.