You say that like you engage with the perspective, but like two dozen people have tried very patiently explaining things to you only to get strung around indefinitely
Third campist bullshit is based on anticommunist distortions and is fundamentally more in line with the ideology of the State Department. Multipolarity will not be achieved by your book club.
If you think China is more anticommunist than NATO, you’re smoking crack. If you think even Russia, which is a liberal state that exists to not be the USSR first and foremost, is more anticommunist than NATO, you are smoking crack.
Who supports Cuba? Who seeks its destruction?
More importantly, and forgive me for not spelling this out for you before, China has more than a book club! It has a large military and many other practical things going for it that benefit multipolarity. Your book club has none of that, nor prospects at a fraction of it.
we’ve seen enough of polarization.
Classics in anarcho-bidenism. Silly me, I should have just thought of opting out of the world order because NPR tells me that “polarization” is bad and this “multipolarity” stuff sure sounds like it’s the same thing.
How would I have such comparisons? (It’s a rhetorical question btw)
There’s no reality with such cryptic assumptions and accusations anyway. You don’t have to play with these strawmen. Nobody should be forcing you to do such things
Thanks for the love comrade. Sometimes it’s fun to put those fallacies in light and counter with some unity & compassion. After all, it’s understandable and only human.
My point is that denying China’s status as a historically progressive force geopolitically or even vaguely insinuating that it is anticommunist in a way that is comparable to its opposition is hysterical, and if neither of those are what you mean, then what the fuck are you even saying?
I’m super clear and straight forward with what I’ve said, with no need for such comparisons or any insinuating. Btw the word you’re looking for is a regressive force (as are the other forces you’ve brought into comparison)
“I am very clear. Here, let me falsely correct you about word usage, elliding the difference in position, to really demonstrate how clear and straighforward I am.”
Thank God we have you to remind us that bilateral development is regressive next to imperialism.
Nothing you say is ever straightforward. I can never understand you, and when I’ve asked for clarification you never respond except with more things that don’t make sense
Go further and you’ll start seeing through the china marketing as well
You say that like you engage with the perspective, but like two dozen people have tried very patiently explaining things to you only to get strung around indefinitely
Third campist bullshit is based on anticommunist distortions and is fundamentally more in line with the ideology of the State Department. Multipolarity will not be achieved by your book club.
I don’t even know why you’re taking whatever it is on me.
China’s “book club” is anticommunist, we’ve seen enough of polarization.
If you think China is more anticommunist than NATO, you’re smoking crack. If you think even Russia, which is a liberal state that exists to not be the USSR first and foremost, is more anticommunist than NATO, you are smoking crack.
Who supports Cuba? Who seeks its destruction?
More importantly, and forgive me for not spelling this out for you before, China has more than a book club! It has a large military and many other practical things going for it that benefit multipolarity. Your book club has none of that, nor prospects at a fraction of it.
Classics in anarcho-bidenism. Silly me, I should have just thought of opting out of the world order because NPR tells me that “polarization” is bad and this “multipolarity” stuff sure sounds like it’s the same thing.
How would I have such comparisons? (It’s a rhetorical question btw)
There’s no reality with such cryptic assumptions and accusations anyway. You don’t have to play with these strawmen. Nobody should be forcing you to do such things
Lol absolute octopus ink cloud moment
Thanks for the love comrade. Sometimes it’s fun to put those fallacies in light and counter with some unity & compassion. After all, it’s understandable and only human.
My point is that denying China’s status as a historically progressive force geopolitically or even vaguely insinuating that it is anticommunist in a way that is comparable to its opposition is hysterical, and if neither of those are what you mean, then what the fuck are you even saying?
I’m super clear and straight forward with what I’ve said, with no need for such comparisons or any insinuating. Btw the word you’re looking for is a regressive force (as are the other forces you’ve brought into comparison)
“I am very clear. Here, let me falsely correct you about word usage, elliding the difference in position, to really demonstrate how clear and straighforward I am.”
Thank God we have you to remind us that bilateral development is regressive next to imperialism.
Sheesh, and you claim me of false use of words with these. What’s with the selective imperialism fandom
Nothing you say is ever straightforward. I can never understand you, and when I’ve asked for clarification you never respond except with more things that don’t make sense
Who is this? My comments were to someone else. What do you want help with?