Because they aspire to (and occasionally have proven to) fit the widely-accepted definition described above.
Why isn’t it, in your opinion?
this is what modern imperalism looks like.
Your comment carves out your own pet definition, asserting that financial dependency equates to people getting bombed. While not ideal, it’s far from comparable.
If you define words like “imperialism” however you want, of course you can craft perfect boxes to fit countries you don’t like but exclude countries you do like. You’re just piggybacking off a word you know people don’t like.
now take anti-imperialist countries like russia or china.
As I said above, both of those countries are very obviously imperialist, and opposing another imperialist country does not make them anti-imperialist.
Just say “Russia are The Good Guys and the USA are The Bad Guys” and you will be speaking from your heart instead of redefining terms to propagandize.
Here, I’ll bootstrap some empathy for you:
If I personally feel like “murderer” should mean “someone who thinks Russia and China are anti-imperialist,” does that mean it makes sense to call you a murderer? Or is that an inherently dishonest form of communication, and starting off a conversation calling you a murderer without clarifying I’m using a secret non-standard definition is ridiculous?
Likewise, frankly. To a propagandized person, everything reasonable seems like insanity.
It’s either that or you see the obvious flaw in your logic and pulled the eject handle because you couldn’t respond.
I don’t know you so I don’t know which it is.
I just hope if it’s the former, and you meant to be participating in good faith, that you realize that the definition of “imperialist” absolutely applies to NK, SK, Russia, and China. You’re doing mental gymnastics if you think or claim that’s not the case.
You can start out at “they’re imperialist but it’s okay” if you want, but anything else is just factually wrong.
Because they aspire to (and occasionally have proven to) fit the widely-accepted definition described above.
Why isn’t it, in your opinion?
Your comment carves out your own pet definition, asserting that financial dependency equates to people getting bombed. While not ideal, it’s far from comparable.
If you define words like “imperialism” however you want, of course you can craft perfect boxes to fit countries you don’t like but exclude countries you do like. You’re just piggybacking off a word you know people don’t like.
As I said above, both of those countries are very obviously imperialist, and opposing another imperialist country does not make them anti-imperialist.
Just say “Russia are The Good Guys and the USA are The Bad Guys” and you will be speaking from your heart instead of redefining terms to propagandize.
Here, I’ll bootstrap some empathy for you:
If I personally feel like “murderer” should mean “someone who thinks Russia and China are anti-imperialist,” does that mean it makes sense to call you a murderer? Or is that an inherently dishonest form of communication, and starting off a conversation calling you a murderer without clarifying I’m using a secret non-standard definition is ridiculous?
damn, i put in effort to make a long reply cus i thought u were ready to discuss this in good faith but then u hit me with this ._.
alright then, have a nice day…
Likewise, frankly. To a propagandized person, everything reasonable seems like insanity.
It’s either that or you see the obvious flaw in your logic and pulled the eject handle because you couldn’t respond.
I don’t know you so I don’t know which it is.
I just hope if it’s the former, and you meant to be participating in good faith, that you realize that the definition of “imperialist” absolutely applies to NK, SK, Russia, and China. You’re doing mental gymnastics if you think or claim that’s not the case.
You can start out at “they’re imperialist but it’s okay” if you want, but anything else is just factually wrong.