So what would you call someone trying to divert the discussion about Chinese agression towards Taiwan with an entirely unrelated agression the US does on the other side of the world? That is clearly a “but what about” argument… that is indeed weak, lazy and interlectually insulting.
You have no idea what whataboutism is then. You said:
there is no realistic scenario that includes the US attacking China right now and there hasn’t been one in decades. The Taiwanese military infrastructure is purely defensive in nature.
and I said the definition of defense, according to the US, is genocidal force projection. If you think that’s whataboutism, then you can maintain your thought-terminating cliche and ignore the fact that the empire is consistently lying to you about what defense is.
Look, if you can not honestly engage with the topic of Taiwanese self-governance and keep trying to find excuses for Chinese aggression towards their peaceful neighbor, even going so far as denying the existence of the Taiwanese nation (both historical and present) then you clearly need to do a deep self-inspection on who here is operating with “thought-terminating cliches” and needs to lay off on imperial propaganda 🤷
Again, you are characterizing Chinese national security as aggression when China is literally not committing acts of agression. I don’t know why you think that’s a form of honesty.
I am engaged in the topic of Taiwanese self-government - I honestly don’t believe they are entitled to it and I have stated my reasons why. If you think my honesty is being dishonest because the only honest position is believing that Taiwan should be a sovereign nation, then I hate to break it to you but you have no idea what honesty is and you are using the term “honesty” to mean “agrees with me”.
If you think that my arguments about nations, countries, being states having related but distinct historical processes that can be compared across continents, regions, cultures, and time periods is a set of thought-terminating cliches, then maybe I overestimated your ability to participate in discourse above the level of “I know you are but what am I”.
And it is full mask off imperialism, where you think it is justified for one nation to subjugate another. Great that you are finally honest here with anyone reading this 😏
I would love to Taiwan decolonized is true statement. Like I would love to see Canada, the US, and Australia decolonized. It’s also true that I don’t think there is a Taiwanese nation, much like I don’t think there’s a Canadian nation, a USian nation, nor an Australian nation. For Taiwan to be decolonized would not mean for the acceptance of a Taiwanese nation but rather to establish the sovereignty of the indigenous nations on the islands that are not Han, and to make the Han subject to the sovereignty of the indigenous nations.
None of that is inconsistent. None of that is imperialism. None of that is subjugation.
The interlectual hoops you are jumping through to justify your cognitive disonance is truly astonishing 🤡
The Taiwanese nation is a historical and present fact as I have clearly laid out above. Your semantic arguments hold little water and arguing that only the indigious population has a right to claim nationhood is a very transparent excuse to deny the existing local population the right to self-governance (which they already peacefully do together with the indiginous population).
https://www.cnas.org/publications/reports/hellscape-for-taiwan
The Western idea of “defense” is genocide.
If your only remaining argument is more whataboutism entirely unrelated to the nation of Taiwan then I guess we are finished here.
Comparing Chinese aggression to USA aggression in regards to national aggression finishes the argument for you?
If so, not in your favor
“Whataboutism” is weak, lazy, and intellectually insulting. Do better.
(lots of history and a good discussion until you squeezed the whataboutism turd out)
So what would you call someone trying to divert the discussion about Chinese agression towards Taiwan with an entirely unrelated agression the US does on the other side of the world? That is clearly a “but what about” argument… that is indeed weak, lazy and interlectually insulting.
You have no idea what whataboutism is then. You said:
and I said the definition of defense, according to the US, is genocidal force projection. If you think that’s whataboutism, then you can maintain your thought-terminating cliche and ignore the fact that the empire is consistently lying to you about what defense is.
Look, if you can not honestly engage with the topic of Taiwanese self-governance and keep trying to find excuses for Chinese aggression towards their peaceful neighbor, even going so far as denying the existence of the Taiwanese nation (both historical and present) then you clearly need to do a deep self-inspection on who here is operating with “thought-terminating cliches” and needs to lay off on imperial propaganda 🤷
Again, you are characterizing Chinese national security as aggression when China is literally not committing acts of agression. I don’t know why you think that’s a form of honesty.
I am engaged in the topic of Taiwanese self-government - I honestly don’t believe they are entitled to it and I have stated my reasons why. If you think my honesty is being dishonest because the only honest position is believing that Taiwan should be a sovereign nation, then I hate to break it to you but you have no idea what honesty is and you are using the term “honesty” to mean “agrees with me”.
If you think that my arguments about nations, countries, being states having related but distinct historical processes that can be compared across continents, regions, cultures, and time periods is a set of thought-terminating cliches, then maybe I overestimated your ability to participate in discourse above the level of “I know you are but what am I”.
So you were lying when you said earlier:
And it is full mask off imperialism, where you think it is justified for one nation to subjugate another. Great that you are finally honest here with anyone reading this 😏
Talk about intellectual dishonesty.
I would love to Taiwan decolonized is true statement. Like I would love to see Canada, the US, and Australia decolonized. It’s also true that I don’t think there is a Taiwanese nation, much like I don’t think there’s a Canadian nation, a USian nation, nor an Australian nation. For Taiwan to be decolonized would not mean for the acceptance of a Taiwanese nation but rather to establish the sovereignty of the indigenous nations on the islands that are not Han, and to make the Han subject to the sovereignty of the indigenous nations.
None of that is inconsistent. None of that is imperialism. None of that is subjugation.
The interlectual hoops you are jumping through to justify your cognitive disonance is truly astonishing 🤡
The Taiwanese nation is a historical and present fact as I have clearly laid out above. Your semantic arguments hold little water and arguing that only the indigious population has a right to claim nationhood is a very transparent excuse to deny the existing local population the right to self-governance (which they already peacefully do together with the indiginous population).