Azrael

Fair enough. Manual labor jobs do tend to have a "If it works and no one dies, we’ll call it safe" attitude. Thanks for clarifying that.

Surely there are OSHA guidelines regulating that. I'm not calling you a liar. I'm just saying that pulling a 100lb chain 100ft vertically repeatedly would be brutally inefficient without mechanical advantage. If i'm not mistaken, riggers rarely use brute force alone for that kind of task.

Tell me you don't lift for your job without telling me you don't lift for your job. Your back will start to hurt after 5 minutes if you bend over like that. Loading trucks for your job grinds you down like sandpaper on your joints.

Some hospitals use AI to scan patients and find signs of illness before it becomes a problem. I’d say that’s a pretty good use of AI.

Self-defense and protecting civilians are not mutually exclusive. That’s literally why the laws of war exist.

I didn’t say you supported deliberately targeting civilians. My point was that attacking military targets inside heavily populated areas will inevitably kill civilians. That’s why civilian protection is a central principle in international humanitarian law. The rule has to apply universally.

So just to be clear, are civilians legitimate targets as long as they live in the “wrong” country?

We’re working from fundamentally different priors. I don’t think global politics reduces to a single economic contradiction. I’ll leave it there.

In realism, the opposing tendencies are expansion of one state’s power and balancing by others to preserve sovereignty. In institutionalism, it’s integration versus fragmentation. Neither requires framing global politics as capital versus labor.

Calling imperialism the principal contradiction is a theoretical commitment, not an empirical conclusion. Other schools like realism or institutionalism would identify state security competition or balance-of-power dynamics as primary.

Talk about cultural chauvinism. The implication here is: “You people are detached, soft, and incapable of understanding real war.” That’s not an argument. That’s a moral superiority pose. It frames one group as hardened realists and the other as naïve spectators. Historically, that kind of framing is how conflicts get emotionally escalated. Dehumanization rarely begins with slurs. It begins with sweeping generalizations. And the irony is thick. You’re accusing me of only conceptualizing civilian deaths, while simultaneously minimizing the reality that modern warfare absolutely does kill civilians. The idea that wars are cleanly fought “between armies” belongs in the 19th century, not the 21st. Civilian harm is a central moral and legal issue in contemporary conflict. That’s not Western fragility. That’s international humanitarian law.

Lenin’s framework is one influential analysis of capitalist imperialism. That doesn’t make it exhaustive. Modern geopolitics also includes state security competition, regional spheres of influence, and non-capitalist power projection.

Imperialism as a concept predates Marxism and isn’t reducible to Lenin’s model. We can debate which framework is more useful, but pretending there’s only one definition isn’t serious.

And what about the innocent people who voted against the fascist government? They deserve to die too?

Well, aren’t you cheerful

Depends on your definition. The U.S. fits the definition of “Informal Empire” pretty well, but it’s definitely not an old school empire like Rome or Britain

Ah, I see. So when the U.S. bombs another country, it’s genocide. But if someone does it to the U.S. it’s a good thing? Got it.

I’m talking about big oil and gas production, food and farmland, massive agricultural output and the ability to export it at scale, freshwater and arable land (underappreciated, but increasingly strategic as climate stress rises elsewhere), minerals (some, not all). And don’t forget non natural resources the U.S. has like: Capital markets: Deep, liquid markets that can fund governments and companies. Money is a resource; the U.S. is one of the main wells. technology and IP: Advanced R&D, software, aerospace, biotech, semiconductors design, and the companies that sit on them. Security alliances and military reach: Not a resource in nature, but it functions like one. i It shapes trade routes, deters threats, and sets terms. The world’s reserve currency system: Being able to transact, borrow, and settle trade in USD is a kind of meta-resource. Others want access to it more than they want a mine. That bundle is why the U.S. stays permanently relevant, for better and worse.

They say ignorance is bliss. It must be nice to be as delusional as you and live in a peaceful hippy dippy little fantasy world.

Correct. You never demanded to remove the military capabilities of one country. I said “I wonder what would happen if we didn’t have a military”, and you made a comment about the little girl’s backpack. I followed up with a counter argument. This is how conversations work.

Good point. But let me ask you this: Without a military or nuclear weapons, what is preventing other countries from taking advantage at the first chance they get? Criticize the U.S. all you want. But the country is full of valuable resources that other countries want. Take away the U.S.'s ability to defend themselves and the risk of foreign nations taking advantage will spike dramatically. Nukes are basically the ultimate “don’t even think about it” sign.

What kind of fantasy world are you living in?

I wonder what would happen if we didn’t have a military at all