Criticising America is nothing new or subversive. Hunter s Thompson was doing it all these years ago and much more interestingly and on point than anyone on here could.

Day every day the same unoriginal whining because it is hard to call it something as sophisticated as critique, can be heard all over the reddit.

While at the same time no one bothers to critique CCP to the same extent because we simply are not paid for doing this. No one is interested in non profit repeating the same facts about china every single day.

We are just content knowing that china is not some sort of “saviour” or alternative. It is an enemy of the free world. I try to not use things produced by my adversary to not fund my own doom.

▲

Matl 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

> is not some sort of “saviour” or alternative. It is an enemy of the free world. I try to not use things produced by my adversary to not fund my own doom.

Are you aware that this is how America is increasingly perceived around the world?

It's not a 'free world' when America dictates and the others are supposed to just take orders.

May be you're fine with that, feeling on top of the food chain, but everyone needs friends at some point.

What does the 'free' in 'free world' even mean any more? You're not allowed to express your opinion on college campuses anymore, (lack of domestic freedom), and if you're a country, you're increasingly facing trade barriers from the US, (lack of freedom in commerce).

I'm not saying that as a sovereign country you don't have a right to impose these restrictions. I simply wish the US would treat other countries as sovereign.

▲

juleiie a day ago | parent [-]

America is still a democracy. Its leaders may be vile today but they are bound to change. Unlike China.

I cannot condemn whole nation on the basis of two elections.

That’s the beauty of it all. In a democracy there are no irredeemable nations. There are just phases better or worse. China was always evil and cracked down on anyone who questioned power of highest leader.

If you think you are going to convince people that somehow an authoritarian state is preferable to a western liberal democracy in any way then you are foolish. Or paid by the state.

I love democracy and I love freedom. I will tirelessly work to oppose people like you until my last breath. That I swear.

All the disinformation, all the propaganda will be dispersed at the iron flank of NATO. You will never have this land. Europe is my home and it is free and free will remain till I breathe.

So I dare you commies, come here to Poland and try anything. We will crush you and you will see what red really looks like.

▲

Matl a day ago | parent [-]

> America is still a democracy. Its leaders may be vile today but they are bound to change.

I disagree that it is a democracy. It's a corporatocracy and it's been for decades. But the elections are a nice PR.

The Trump thing of not having a PR filter over policies that were there long before him is just making people question whether system a.) is indeed better than system b.);

a.) Pseudo democracy where the will of corporations, but not people is implemented and that the people up for elections are so compromised by special interests by the time we get a choice that it doesn't matter anymore i.e. the US and most of the West.

b.) A system that does away with the spectacle of national elections, with the social contract being that the leadership better be competent and peruse national interests and development, but is not directly elected i.e. China. That competency is supposed to be ensured by only allowing people who have proven competence at lower levels, (some of which they are directly elected to).

There's a question about how sustainable either is. I would prefer a third option c.) where you can elect relatively competent leaders, but that doesn't seem to be an option these days.

What Trump is unquestionably doing however, is making a lot of fans of the idealized system of democracy c.) think that perhaps option b.) > a.) even if less than ideal.

Just because you call yourself a democracy doesn't mean you're one. Just ask citizens of the DRC.

▲

juleiie a day ago | parent [-]

System B In America wouldn’t be better at all. It would be corrupt corporate authoritarian tendency becoming an established reality. It is not yet a reality. You should work to restore democracy not fantasize about falling deeper into authoritarian pit.

I don’t get you people. You whine about authoritarian tendencies of Trump and then you say that maybe an authoritarian system is better and you want authoritarian system? This is just insanity

That makes me think all these comments are just propaganda double speak

▲

Matl 18 hours ago | parent [-]

I am not American and you have misunderstood my point.

The point is that if you want to have the privileges of a global hegemon and go around the world and accuse others of being authoritarian governments i.e. China, then your shit better be close to exemplary counter to that. Otherwise people around the world might run out of patience with your shit.

Looking at both countries and what system the majority of the world would increasingly rather live under, IMO it would be option b.) not because they love authoritarianism, but because they want to live well and be as free as possible while doing so.

The US is increasingly authoritarian, (in China you may not be able to criticize Xi, in the US you cannot criticize Israel without consequences).

There's multiple ways one can be 'free'. The US seems to define freedom only in the narrow sense of being free from overt oppression for political opinions, but for many being free from economic insecurity is at least as, if not more, of an important freedom. The US does not offer that second freedom, but increasingly not even the first one.

In light of that, why should the people of the world tolerate US hegemony and not increasingly turn towards China?

▲

juleiie 12 hours ago | parent [-]

Wait so America is getting increasingly authoritarian and you are afraid of authoritarianism so you chose option B - Authoritarianism

Make it make sense

“ In China, criticizing the central government or Xi Jinping can result in forced disappearances, total digital erasure, arbitrary detention, and severe legal prosecution by a judicial system controlled entirely by the ruling party.”

I don’t like this, I don’t like that option B at all. I got an allergy to detention camps

	▲	Matl 39 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> Wait so America is getting increasingly authoritarian and you are afraid of authoritarianism so you chose option B - Authoritarianism > Make it make sense If Option A is a country that pretends is a democracy, but in reality is an oligarchy where you don't get taken care of if you're sick, has crappy infrastructure, most people can't afford a family or a vacation AND you increasingly can't express your opinion and Option B is a country where you can't openly express your opinion, but most of the other things I mentioned you CAN afford, then many people would go for option B, because with option A they likely can't express themselves anyway and CANNOT do things they can with option B. There's no simpler way to dumb this down for you. The point is not 'we love authoritarianism', but that America ONLY has the democracy claim going for it and NOT MUCH ELSE, therefore the democracy it has better be near perfect for that to be a compelling argument. And it is far from that. What I find frustrating with discussions like these is that many Americans seem content with the claim that America is a democracy without examining the reality, meaning the chance for improvement there is slim.

▲

alfiedotwtf 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Ask people in Iraq, Afghanistan, Venezuela, Cuba, and Greenland if they think America is their saviour and in general do-gooder of the free world.

	▲	0xDEAFBEAD 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Which people, exactly, are you asking? "That same ice cream shop owner thanked me repeatedly for my help in invading and ultimately overthrowing Saddam Hussein’s regime in 2003. I told him that Canada didn’t take part in the invasion, but he didn’t care. Kurdish people were brutally persecuted by Saddam for over 30 years, and look back on the Saddam years with pure terror. The shop owner refused to take payment for the ice cream and offered that I stay with his family in their apartment upstairs." https://goodperson.substack.com/p/notes-on-my-travels-in-ira... In Afghanistan, you saw their desperate attempts to flee the country as the US withdrew. Nonetheless, it was necessary to reduce our warmongering and military footprint. Afghani women being forced into burqas is ultimately not our business. In Venezuela, apparently, the main complaint is that Trump didn't go even further: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas... In Cuba, on the subreddit, there is a discussion of Trump saying that "Cuba is next" (after Iran). A mod of the subreddit writes (translated): "I am in Cuba, and I would say that 95% of the people here—those I know or have spoken with—are reacting to this with hope. That is something that many people on the outside do not see." See link below: https://www.reddit.com/r/cuba/comments/1s5s1ip/trump_cuba_is... And I'm sure you could find a few Greenlandic Inuit who are tired of Danish colonialism as well. My point is that simply "asking people" is not a particularly reliable or effective method. It's much better to stay complicit, reduce military spending, and avoid being a warmonger.

▲

jicko 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I don't think people pointing out American hypocrisy are under a delusion that China is a saint. They're just pointing out the hypocrisy.

It's also a delusion to think that the world is free under US hegemony. It's mostly better for those who cooperate, and the incentives are good. But it's not "free". The only entity free to do whatever it wants under US hegemony, is the US.

The unoriginal whining is mostly about China or any country that isn't the US, really. Asia is unimaginative and can only copy. Europe is lazy, blah blah blah. Because Americans who can't take being told that their country isn't #1 in the morality olympics seem to also not know much about other countries at all.

Like look at all the whining about China being communist. It's fcking hilarious. They've been an authoritarian, state-run capitalist country for decades by now. Just google their social spending vs other countries, will you.

▲

andersonpico 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> Criticising America is nothing new or subversive. Hunter s Thompson was doing it all these years ago and much more interestingly and on point than anyone on here could.

The existence better critique out there is irrelevant if you don't take the argumentt in front of you on its strenghts.

> Day every day the same unoriginal whining because it is hard to call it something as sophisticated as critique, can be heard all over the reddit.

Criticism of a country with military bases across the whole world doesn't have to be hip to be correct. No one cares what you think about reddit or how hipster you like your political takes to be and this doesn't exempt you from having to argue about the concrete facts in a discussion forum.

> While at the same time no one bothers to critique CCP to the same extent because we simply are not paid for doing this. No one is interested in non profit repeating the same facts about china every single day.

You are so wrong about no one criticizing the CCP that's it's difficult to believe that this statement is sincere. Maybe I could attribute it to selection bias as you're on an american forum? There's also a cottage industry around anti-Chinese propaganda besides the western funded government propaganda machine that is in place for the last decades.

> We are just content knowing that china is not some sort of “saviour” or alternative.

Oh but they are! China is a concrete alternative for an economic partner for most parts of the world, but only if the US doesn't sponsor a military coup or invade your country in response. If they you can get away from Americans threats, China is also a more reliable partner with much more stable policies and much less likely to sabotage your elections, secretly pay your politics and judges and manipulate your markets.

> It is an enemy of the free world. I try to not use things produced by my adversary to not fund my own doom.

This has no basis in reality. The US is the actual enemy of the free world and has been since ww2: occupying countries, sabotaging their domestic politic disputes, staging military coups, bombings, etc. Whatever justifications for those actions after the fact do not make any other country more free.

▲

0xDEAFBEAD 2 days ago | parent [-]

>military bases across the whole world

Another reason I'm eager to leave NATO is leaving will help cut down on our military base count.

I expect some Europeans will protest, the same way Kurds protested when Trump pulled us out of Syria:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hz-WKu881Yc

We'll have to stay strong and ignore their protests. It's the only way to reduce our military footprint and warmongering tendencies.

▲

jicko 2 days ago | parent [-]

Yeah because obviously the US-Europe relationship is one way, isn't it?

NATO exists because the US won't allow any other global hegemon to exist. US backing of Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan are for that same reason. I meant that as a neutral statement; large regional powers also do not like each other when situated too close, that's why India and Russia are friendly, and why Russia and China have a complicated relationship despite both being opposed to the US.

Has quite a lot of good also come out of that? To the Europeans, yes. But it's not like the US is doing it from the bottom of their hearts.

And it's not like the US ever intervened in the Middle East for anything other than oil, historically. You go there and piss off the hardcore islamists / dictators, and make use of the Kurds as local fighting forces, and then you abandon them to the revenge of said islamists? Ofc they're pissed.

▲

8note a day ago | parent | next [-]

> NATO exists because the US won't allow any other global hegemon to exist.

this sounds like you are american. NATO is Europe driven, with a goal of keeping the americans involved. the alternative is going back to european powers fighting against each other.

the US the whole time has been basically absent. trump didnt start the "will they wont they" rom com setup. its always been there. NATO didnt go to Afghanistan because the US wanted it. europe demanded that the US invoke article 5, ans insisted on sending help

▲

0xDEAFBEAD 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

>NATO exists because the US won't allow any other global hegemon to exist.

The obvious non-US potential hegemon was China, yet we normalized trade with them, which greatly helped their economy grow.

The new one is India. We've been buddying up to them a fair amount as well.

The US also played a role in the creation of the EU, arguably a more potent rival hegemon than any individual European state: https://archive.is/VC2zV

>Has quite a lot of good also come out of that? To the Europeans, yes. But it's not like the US is doing it from the bottom of their hearts.

I don't believe that is true. As I stated elsewhere in this thread, even during the Biden administration, right after Biden sent billions to Ukraine, the US was barely net-positive in approval rating for many European countries:

https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2024/06/11/views-of-the-u...

If a lot of good came out of the relationship from Europe's perspective, you would expect them to approve of the US. And yet they don't.

So we can conclude that US presence is a negative for Europe, and it would be best for Europe if US troops and security guarantees were withdrawn. Unsurprisingly, many Europeans have requested this course of action.

>And it's not like the US ever intervened in the Middle East for anything other than oil, historically.

The Gulf War was rather similar to the Ukraine invasion in the sense of a powerful country (Iraq) invading a weaker neighbor (Kuwait). But you probably think we only aided Ukraine for minerals-related reasons anyways, eh? That's why Europe is aiding Ukraine right now, correct?

>make use of the Kurds as local fighting forces

So the Kurds and Islamic State are fighting. The US steps in to help the Kurds. At that point we become "warmongers" who are "making use of" the Kurds. It would've been better to stay complicit. After all, the only reason anyone would ever oppose IS is due to oil, right? So that must've been our motivation.

Time to stop the warmongering.

▲

Matl 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

> The obvious non-US potential hegemon was China, yet we normalized trade with them, which greatly helped their economy grow.

Of course you present it as a one way street. Nah, you normalized with China to counter balance the Soviets and after that fell your companies benefited, since it is much cheaper to produce in China.

China just wasn't standing by and it also got something out of that relationship (know how) - the US only wanted it as a cheap sweatshop factory, so as soon as they became a real competitor to the US, the US started with sanctions, tariffs etc.

Having failed in China, the US now wants Latin America to stay behind in development terms, just useful enough to outsource to, but not enough to compete.

	▲	0xDEAFBEAD a day ago \| parent [-]
		>Of course you present it as a one way street. Nah, you normalized with China to counter balance the Soviets and after that fell your companies benefited, since it is much cheaper to produce in China. China's population was about 6x that of Russia in 1970. So 6x the hegemon potential, in the long run. I'd say that the US alliance with China has been highly vindicated btw. China has proven to be a considerably less oppressive great power than the USSR. I'd say both China and the US are quite herbivorous by the standards of historical great powers like, say, Imperial Japan. >Having failed in China, the US now wants Latin America to stay behind in development terms, just useful enough to outsource to, but not enough to compete. Aside from Mexico, the US does not trade a notable amount with Latin America: "In February 2026, United States exported mostly to Mexico ($28.9B), Canada ($28.4B), United Kingdom ($10.7B), Switzerland ($10.7B), and Netherlands ($8.48B), and imported mostly from Mexico ($44.3B), Canada ($29.2B), Chinese Taipei ($21.1B), China ($19B), and Vietnam ($15.7B)." https://oec.world/en/profile/country/usa The US wants to see Latin America develop in order to reduce illegal immigrant flows. During the Biden presidency, Harris was sent to address the "root causes" of illegal immigration: https://www.nbcnews.com/investigations/kamala-harris-border-... You're just making up random conspiracy theories to see what sticks. Note that you don't provide evidence for your claims. The fact that they fit your conspiratorial intuitions appears to be evidence enough for you.

▲

Matl 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> So the Kurds and Islamic State are fighting. The US steps in to help the Kurds. At that point we become "warmongers" who are "making use of" the Kurds.

You left the part where the US sponsored extremist groups in Syria, but of course you did.

You know, your anger makes sense if you selectively leave out large part of the involvement of your own government in various conflicts.

	▲	0xDEAFBEAD a day ago \| parent [-]
		Sure, and the US also sponsored extremist neo-Nazi groups in Ukraine to fight Russia, e.g. Azov Battalion.