And you are using it again. Because the term was coined by English oppressors, than it shouldn’t true…
Christ- this is deeply unserious. Do you understand how the British used it to deflect from the idea that IRA violence and British colonialism were connected? The British were saying "it is a logical fallacy to talk about our violence that creates the resistance, we are talkng about how the resistance is using violence and how that means they're bad"
Always the same answer to everything, my beloved dictator/political system/whatever is not really terrible, because I can point to something even worse
Do you see all violence as divorced from other violence?
Let’s see, “colonials are not as terrible, because what the Nazis did, and Jews were white people” Same as your reasoning.
The Nazis were a colonial power, Jesus Christ, Mary, and Joseph, did you learn nothing about fascism in school?
According to lexicographer Ben Zimmer,[13] the term originated in Northern Ireland in the 1970s. Zimmer cites a 1974 letter by history teacher Sean O'Conaill which was published in The Irish Times where he complained about "the Whatabouts", people who defended the IRA by pointing out supposed wrongdoings of their enemy:
I would not suggest such a thing were it not for the Whatabouts. These are the people who answer every condemnation of the Provisional I.R.A. with an argument to prove the greater immorality of the "enemy", and therefore the justice of the Provisionals' cause: "What about Bloody Sunday, internment, torture, force-feeding, army intimidation?". Every call to stop is answered in the same way: "What about the Treaty of Limerick; the Anglo-Irish treaty of 1921; Lenadoon?". Neither is the Church immune: "The Catholic Church has never supported the national cause. What about Papal sanction for the Norman invasion; condemnation of the Fenians by Moriarty; Parnell?"
— Sean O'Conaill, "Letter to Editor", The Irish Times, 30 Jan 1974
Good example of how claims of whataboutism are used to try to remove actual important context from a discussion.
I actually support the side which is magnitudes less violent. And there is a difference between killing fascists like the Soviets did and killing anti-colonial freedom fighters but mostly civilians like the colonial powers did.
You can only oppose everyone if your opposition doesn't actually do anything. If you're actually affecting things your opposition of one will strengthen the other. You have to be against the US empire and for multipolarity or against multipolarity and for the US empire. There isn't a third option.
"Both sides" is when you equivocate two things which are not equal, you're looking for "whataboutism" which is not an actual fallacy, claiming "you're doing whataboutism" was a PR tactic first used by British colonizers when Irish people brought up British violence in response to anti-IRA propaganda.
Online? No. Online disorganized leftists aren't actually leftists, they're leftist sympathizers. You need to be in a leftist org to actually be a leftist.
You're not a threat unless you're actually doing stuff.
The US isn't a democracy though, it is a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, where every election we get to select which group of oppressors will wield state power against us until the next one.
Also decline is caused by anticolonial resistance and the logic of capitalism breaking down. I would suggest reading Lenin's "imperialism" and Fanon's "wretched of the earth"
What do you call giving weapons with the knowledge that they will be used for genocide?
Does the recipient obviously lying "oh they'll just be used for defense" while they continue to commit genocide with previous shipments of weapons give the democrats plausible deniability in your book?
Just so you know you can't defeat fascism without defeating capitalism. I recommend reading "the economy and class structure of german fascism" and "fascism and social revolution".
In general individual action doesn't really help address social problems.
Politics isn’t gonna fix what is being undermined and dissassembled in our Democracy right now.
I dont think electoral politics will work but you have to expand your definition of politics if you think electoral politics is all that politics is.
It is imperialism to let proxy governments for the UK and US maintain a colonial foothold in China actually.