Why does China need to extend its police to patrol globally exactly?

Not to defend either, but why does the United States. It’s wrong for either. But at least if a country’s leadership invites them in. That’s on the leadership. And while I’m still for basic gun control. Hungary, if you’re listening, don’t let them take all your guns. As much as the cult members in the US babble about nothing. If it ever actually happened, the outcome has never been good.

• I dearly love all these down votes. LOL. By being unhypocritical and consistent, it’s somehow enough to piss all of y’all off. Even though I agree that China doing this is bad. Simply because I said it’s bad when the US has done it in the past as well. You all lose your shit.

• Actually looking back on this now. I can kind of see how this may have stirred up so many of you. I said China was wrong for doing this. That stirred up the Marxist leninists and tankies. But also pointed out that it’s wrong for America or any other country to do that. Which brought out a screeching horde of neoliberal apologists and imperials. Then I said I supported gun control. Which stirred up the hornet’s nest of conservatives. But said that they should protect their access to guns to defend themselves against what’s to come. Which just pissed off neoliberals again. I guess there’s something mildly heartwarming about it. When you can see groups that so often hypocritically fight against each other so much. Actually be able to come together and attack the same thing/person. Because their shared hypocrisy was exposed.

Simply because I said it’s bad when the US has done it in the past as well.

This a great example of “whataboutism”.

No. Whataboutism is when I say “America did it. Therefore China can.” I literally said it was wrong for the US and China. It’s the opposite of whataboutism. I’m not sure if everyone’s reading comprehension is failing them today. But there was literally no what aboutism involved.

The only thing remotely possibly controversial somehow? Was the fact that I said that they had been invited by the leadership of Hungary and therefore pushed the blame to hungary’s leadership? I’m not sure how that’s controversial. It’s a simple fact. They invited China in. But then pretty much all of you down voting are doing it reactionarily and emotionally. Based on things other than what was said.

Here’s The literal first two sentences I wrote. Please point out that whataboutism in it

Not to defend either, but why does the United States. It’s wrong for either. But at least if a country’s leadership invites them in. That’s on the leadership.

literally said it was wrong for the US and China. It’s the opposite of whataboutism.

From the definition of whataboutism linked above, my italics:

the act or practice of responding to an accusation of wrongdoing by claiming that an offense committed by another is similar or worse

You are doing exactly that.

Just to add onto that, whatabautism is not only used to make any bad thing seem better by comparing it to something worse, but it’s also used to distract from the main point.

People are probably not downvoting you because you don’t have a point, but there’s no reason to bring this up here. Make another post criticising Rammstein (the military base) and we can express our disgust with US agencies in foreign countries as well. Easy as that.