I think the point is that both are bad. But somehow it always ends up with a competition where the US is more bad than the rest, and the rest is therefore somehow excused when .ml is involved
“Both are bad” is not a serious geopolitical thought. Every real project will have negative aspects, so if you reduce your analysis to declaring something bad for having bad aspects you will never be able to discriminate between, say, the Nazis and the partisans who fought them and liberated their countries and concentration camps.
Or, in this case, being unable to discriminate between the global seat of capital behind basically every single war and an ongoing genocide and a growing power who hasn’t had a war in decades and works to get countries out of IMF debt traps. You prevent yourself and others from seriously contending with how the world works and what place you can have in it.
Nazis executing civilians is bad. Partisans executing civilians is bad. A bad action is bad no matter the intention.
Insert some quote about how the history is filled with good intentions.
Tell the ‘unlawful’ killed that it’s ok, it was a growing power who haven’t attacked someone for a long time and just tries to lift your country out of poverty that bombed you to bits not the cashking warmongerer, and see if they agree with your reasoning.
Nazis executing civilians is bad. Partisans executing civilians is bad. A bad action is bad no matter the intention. Insert some quote about how the history is filled with good intentions.
Again, this is not a serious geopolitical thought.
Tell the ‘unlawful’ killed that it’s ok, it was a growing power who haven’t attacked someone for a long time and just tries to lift your country out of poverty that bombed you to bits not the cashking warmongerer, and see if they agree with your reasoning.
Respond to my reasoning in any way whatsoever.
It’s important to recognize that when you equate two countries, you tacitly support the dominant narrative. Saying “ABC Bad and XYZ Bad” without doing work to contextualize the extent, impact, and level of “Badness” serves to exaggerate the evils of the “less bad” and understate the evils of the “more bad.” Condemning equally is therefore an unequal condemnation for unequal evils.
See, that’s the issue.
Pointing at state A and saying it’s bad invokes the response “Well B is by far more bad, if you look at contextualized extent, impact, and level of badness!” thus down playing the bad state A has done.
It’s like, A hit X with a fist, but B hit Y with a bat, twice and on the shins, so what A did isn’t so bad actually. Instead of just admitting hitting is wrong.
It’s best to correctly contextualize all bad. Simply saying X is bad if one country does .5X and another does 2X equalizes each into merely “X.”
