I didn’t make up any definition of imperialism. John A. Hobson was the most significant theorist on imperialism pre-Lenin and Lenin’s work Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. This is the most relevant definition of imperialism over the last century, and accurately explains the world position today where wealthy elites in the global north offshore production and utilize state power like the millitary, sanctions, and coups to keep a class of compradors in power in the global south. It’s super-exploitation for super-profits. Russia doesn’t do this.
Sounds interesting, I will look into it. Not sure Russia doesn't do this though. Not by means of capital, but it definitely extracts wealth from the global south, for example by using mercenaries to take over mines.
What would be more legitimate is me saying that you have created your own definition.
This is the definition of Imperialism:
imperialism, state policy, practice, or advocacy of extending power and dominion, especially by direct territorial acquisition or by gaining political and economic control of other areas.
Trying to change the meaning of a well established concept is not helpful. While the definition you posted above is certainly interesting, it should not try to change the meaning of an existing word (if it even tries to do that, maybe it's a conscious or unconscious misrepresentation by you).
As for Russia destroying language and cultures, no, that’s silly
Please inform yourself. This is honestly not even controversial. Why do you think there is only one official language in a state as large as Russia, while Switzerland has four? France was very successful at exterminating all other languages on its territory as well, btw, and it was also an imperialist state for a long time and perhaps still is in some sense.
The USSR had no colonies, and neither does the Russian Federation.
You're aware that colonies don't necessarily have to be overseas?
you’re not actually going to try present the argument that the Uyghurs themselves would, if you went to Xinjiang and asked them, would prefer to be in Gaza
What? Please try to write properly, your sentences are barely decipherable. No one has said anything about Xinjiang concentration camps being better or worse than Gaza.
Please, present this footage that shows that the people of Xinjiang are worse off than the people in Gaza…
Again, no one has claimed that. What are you talking about?
You’re just assuming that, because you are only capable of seeing it in terms of Good Guys and Bad Guys, then I must be too, just in the other direction
I'm not assuming anything, I based this on what you said. Whereas I have clearly expressed a more nuanced view, thus you're, again, not making any sense.
how every Muslim in Xinjiang would be better off dead
I did not say that, although I know for a fact that some of the kidnapped and incarcerated people that are not allowed to see their family and to speak their language would rather be dead.
how the genocide in Gaza is just prattle and whataboutism
I never said that, do you know what whataboutism is?
numbers of dead don’t matter
They matter to me, but clearly not to you.
Funny how “every single one is to many” doesn’t apply to the West, they can kill by the million and you’ll forgive them.
Honestly, this is the last time I reply to you if you keep making shit up. Every single person killed is one too many, it does not matter who does the killing. Is that clear enough for you?
They do, just because they're called differently now, doesn't mean they disappeared. If you call yourself a leftist instead of tankie, doesn't mean you're not a tankie anymore.
Ah yes, prisons, just normal, civilised prisons. Just like Guantanmo is a normal prison, right? And of course, they don't exist in Russia today anymore, where did Navalny die again?
Oh cool, so you made your own definition of Imperialism to fit your world view. Hilarious.
the claims of Russia destroying languages and cultures
This is demonstratably true and I'm not talking about Tsarist Russia.
I'm not disagreeing with your critique of France and its treatment of its former colonies and the same goes for other European countries. None of that has anything to do with Russia being Imperialist though.
If you like justice, I invite you to visit Russia and speak up publicly against its invasion of Ukraine to experience its marvelous justice system first hand.
I conceded that millions was indeed an exaggeration. If you don't know what Gulags are or doubt their existence, I guess it's clear everything you know about Russia is from its current state propaganda.
I don't even know who you're talking about. There is footage of many journalists that went there and filmed with hidden cameras, also Chinese speaking ones.
Russia is the most imperialist state currently in existence. No other nation has destroyed so many languages and cultures in its colonies. There is no other state that uses state run propaganda to extend its power in other nations to the extent that Russia does. No other state that uses its secret service to kill dissidents abroad. There is no other state that currently wages wars to extend its territory (apart from Israel, but it lacks other defining characteristics of an imperialist state). Obviously, the US is imperialist too and many European states used to be, but that in no way substantiates the claim that is Russia is anti-imperialist.
The West hasn’t been able to produce a single example of even one Uyghur being killed
What's happening to them is worse than getting killed.
even though Xinjiang is perfectly accessible and anyone can go there to find perfectly normal cities
Ok, you're completely delusional, should have figured from the start. Please watch some footage of journalists that actually went there.
All your blathering about Palestine is nice whataboutism, but nothing more. I'm strongly opposed to the Israeli government as well, not that it matters in this discussion. It's possible to have a more nuanced view than "east good, west bad" even though that might be too difficult for you to comprehend.
Millions?
Millions is probably incorrect indeed, the estimate is over 1 million. What does it matter though? The one who doesn't seem to care about their lives (apart from Putin, obviously) is you, because every single one is one too many.
What the fuck are you talking about? Please tell me you're not trying to have a take on this while being so monumentally ignorant of even the most basic facts of the matter.
I'm talking about innocent people being held in Gulags and in many cases dying there. Reading comprehension is difficult for you it seems. I'm curious though, do you think Gulags are not real or that only guilty people are sent there? Even if they were guilty, do you think a civilised nation should have concentration camps?
Oh so you're valuing the lives of the Uyghurs and other minorities in concentration camps. You're really valuing the millions of Russian soldiers that die fighting a war of aggression. You value so highly all the innocent people in Gulags which are basically concentration camps too. I see now how highly you value those people, my bad.
people shouting that they care about the environment, while being silent on things like beef or flights etc. are being hypocrites
As others have said, most people that take issue with AI due to its negative impact on the environment will also take issues with those other things. Of course one might argue that to some extent pollution is acceptable for the purpose of producing food, while to a lesser extent for the purpose of powering magical text completion toys.
I've seen many people say AI IS BURNING THE PLANNET, when that is simply not true
How is it not true? You've agreed that it has a negative impact on the environment. It's not burning the planet on its own, but its contrubution to the burning is non-negligible and only expected to grow. According to all scientific findings, we have to reduce our carbon footprint, not increase it even further, to make the impact of climate change maybe somehow bearable. Therefore, everything contributing to an increase has to be scrutinised thoroughly as to the value it provides net its impact on pollution. Currently, that calculation results in a net negative value of "AI".
What's your point? "There are other things that pollute the environment even more, so this thing that pollutes the environment a bit less is totally fine"? I hope you understand why you're getting downvoted.
done