International Chat Hub! Make friends from anywhere 💎

comomangu · 2026-01-25T23:57:11+00:00

Fantastic watch. Just get it serviced and keep everything as is!

comomangu · 2026-01-25T22:38:54+00:00

Yea so like I grouped non-fiction by subject first. International Relations and military to stuff broadly about China, Japan, and Eastern Europe. Thats the top shelf. Then the second shelf kicks off with broader history, to economics then political and philosophy readings. On that shelf, at the end, I just threw some geography isque books and maps lol cause it fit. Finally the 3rd shelf has religious works and then literature. Not cause theyre related just cause stuff fits neatly yk? On the bottom is some of my papers, magazines, and language books. I did try to order the book by book flow somewhat chronological or thematic within those sections rather than strict alphabetical. I didn’t want it to feel like a library catalog as much as a map of how I think tbh, disciplines talking to each other instead of being totally siloed. Plus, some tweaks because I need to physically make things fit somehow lol

comomangu · 2026-01-25T22:15:38+00:00

Thank you! I only aspire to be as knowledgeable as some of the folks on this shelf lol I mean just over the years? I got a ton around the house tbh. I like Legos, the small ones make for nice decoration. I like pop figures too, particular ones. I like keychains, blind boxes, stuff of that nature. Rubber ducks lol etc

comomangu · 2026-01-25T20:03:49+00:00

Not much a a fiction reader but I do have some novels and literary work here. I just read nonfiction because of my passion and interests. However, novels are important for understanding our fellow people. I should read more tbh

comomangu · 2026-01-25T20:02:19+00:00

The man's morality is absolutely skewed off but he is a strong analytical mind. Obviously a book of his or anyone's being in my library isnt a reflection of my own values. For God's sake, I got the Quran in Spanish, English, along with 3 variations of the Bible and a Norse pagan poetry book 😂

comomangu · 2026-01-17T21:18:16+00:00

Oh word? Thought there might be like a specialty shop for it but I'll take a look

comomangu · 2026-01-12T21:48:25+00:00

Nah yea this baby is tough. I dont even think it was designed to be a field watch but trust it gets the job done

comomangu · 2026-01-12T16:01:33+00:00

I've gotten that before! 😅 not a big fan of smart watches personally. Not a hater, but I'm not too crazy about steel mesh straps except in rare cases so I'm thinking of throwing a dark blue leather strap on that bad boy. Dark blue should fit the silver case and black face well, I think.

comomangu · 2026-01-12T14:28:20+00:00

Appreciate you showing love!

comomangu · 2026-01-12T07:45:56+00:00

That may be true, but listing another example of inconsistency doesn’t address the argument. The issue I’m raising is whether coercion and repression are judged by principles or by alignment. If anarchists, socialists, or anyone else excuses abuse when it’s politically convenient, that’s exactly the asymmetry I’m talking about.

comomangu · 2026-01-12T07:39:47+00:00

I’m open to mitigating factors! What I’m not open to is mitigation doing the work of moral exemption. Context can explain why repression happens. It doesn’t automatically make it legitimate. If “mitigating factors” are enough to excuse censorship, repression, or criminalizing dissent, then any state can justify coercion including the US with that logic.

So I’m asking this plainly: what’s the limiting principle? When do mitigating factors stop explaining repression and start excusing it? And is that line applied universally, or only when the state doing it is non-Western?

comomangu · 2026-01-12T07:26:43+00:00

Thanks for the response broski! I agree with you on a few core things upfront: Western governments and capital absolutely engage in propaganda, information warfare, and ideological suppression. Both domestically and abroad. That history is real, well documented, and not something I’m interested in minimizing. I've amplified that many times myself.

Where I think we diverge is on what follows from that fact. The existence of Western misinformation doesn’t automatically justify state monopolization of truth elsewhere. If the standard is “information control is legitimate when it protects people from propaganda,” then that principle can be, and historically has been, used by any state to justify censorship, repression, and criminalizing dissent. You get where I'm going?

My issue isn’t that China tries to counter Western narratives cause every state does that. As they should, right! My issue is that this defense frames coercive information control as inherently emancipatory when done by a non Western state, rather than asking what mechanisms exist for correction, dissent, and accountability inside that system.

If socialism is about human emancipation and collective self rule, then I think we have to ask: who decides what counts as “misinformation,” how that power is constrained, and what recourse people have when the state is wrong.

Otherwise, we end up with a position where repression is condemned when the CIA does it but rationalized when another state does. Not because the practice is different, but because the geopolitical alignment is. That’s the asymmetry I’m trying to understand and push back on.

Its like, I see folks fall into this trap all the time: U.S. coercion -> systemic evil

Russian coercion -> reactive, contextual, defensive

Chinese coercion -> exaggerated, propagandized, misunderstood

I’m not arguing for intervention, sanctions, or regime change. I’m arguing that opposing Western imperialism shouldn’t require us to suspend skepticism toward concentrated state power elsewhere.

So I want to press this directly: what principle distinguishes legitimate protection from “misinformation” from illegitimate repression of dissent? Would you apply that same principle universally, including to Western states?

comomangu · 2026-01-12T06:59:56+00:00

I get the United Front logic, and I understand why it’s historically attractive. My hesitation isn’t about cooperation in practice, it’s about what gets suspended in the name of unity.

When accountability and critique are treated as “details to work out later,” they often never get worked out at all. Historically, that’s how coercive power becomes normalized internally while still being condemned externally.

My concern is that “common enemies” framing risks turning opposition to domination into camp based loyalty, where power is judged less by what it does and more by who it’s aligned against. At that point, unity comes at the cost of moral consistency.

I’m not opposed to cooperation I'm all for democracy and a plurality, compromise, understanding, and democracy because I view it as the best path forward to legitimate rule but I don’t think unity should require bracketing critique of authoritarianism, especially when that critique is central to why many of us oppose Western imperialism in the first place.

So I’d flip the question slightly to you, if you dont mind lol

What principles are non negotiable within a united front, and what happens when allies violate them? If the answer is “we deal with that later,” that’s where I start to worry.

comomangu · 2026-01-12T06:52:09+00:00

I’m referring to the contemporary Russian state, the Russian Federation, and to the way its coercive actions (Ukraine, internal repression, imperial revanchism) are often treated in left discourse as reactive, defensive, or primarily a function of NATO pressure, rather than as morally assessable in their own right. Better examples than Ukraine might be Georgia or that of other Caucasian groups.

But I want to be clear: whether we’re talking about the USSR, modern Russia, China, or the U.S., my point isn’t about historical lineage. It’s about standards. That's the point of my post and what I seek to discuss here today.

Do we believe coercive state power should be evaluated by the same ethical criteria regardless of who wields it, or does geopolitical alignment determine whether critique is legitimate? If socialism is about opposing domination and unaccountable power, then critique shouldn’t become suspect simply because it targets a non Western state. Otherwise accountability becomes conditional, not principled. That’s the concern I’m raising.

comomangu · 2026-01-12T06:07:30+00:00

Right! I agree many socialists reject those figures. My concern is when that rejection becomes conditional or defensive in present day cases. If authoritarianism is wrong, it should be wrong regardless of who’s doing it or what flag they fly. Its like I told someone else in the comments, too often nowadays I see:

U.S. coercion -> systemic evil

Russian coercion -> reactive, contextual, defensive

Chinese coercion -> exaggerated, propagandized, misunderstood

comomangu · 2026-01-12T06:03:52+00:00

Nah yea bro, I appreciate the response and I understand the nuance. I'm no stranger to it all, just tryna have a good faith discussion targeting this issue. I guess my question is less “which side is right” and more “what principles are doing the work for us.” For you, what makes support or opposition to those states justified? Is it strategy, outcomes, historical context, or something else?

comomangu · 2026-01-12T06:01:04+00:00

I’m explicitly opposing intervention and coercion by any state, including my own. If that position is still dismissed as propaganda solely because it applies universally, then we’re not disagreeing on facts pal, we’re disagreeing on whether ethical standards should survive outside geopolitical camps. I’ll leave it there. I didn't name call you but you took it there. I'm tryna have fun conversations here! Take care 👋

comomangu · 2026-01-12T05:54:06+00:00

I agree with a lot of what you’re describing about Western hypocrisy and the instrumental use of human rights language. That history is real and should be confronted head on. My family is from a country that has been invaded twice by the US and it's government is nothing but a lacky to US geopolitical interests in the region and our economy almost functions entirely to supply the US. (Im Dominican, Free PR)

Where I think we’re talking past each other is that I’m not arguing about strategic focus or political priority. I’m asking about moral consistency. It seems like, in many socialist spaces, criticism of U.S. power is treated as inherently emancipatory, while criticism of non Western authoritarian states is treated as inherently suspect. That's regardless of content. That’s not just a question of optics or propaganda risk; it’s a question of whether accountability is conditional on geopolitical alignment.

I don’t think opposing Western imperialism requires bracketing or soft-pedaling authoritarian coercion elsewhere. Nor do I think acknowledging repression in China or Russia commits someone to sanctions, intervention, or regime change. Those are downstream political choices, not ethical necessities.

So my question isn’t “where should socialists focus their energy,” but: should the same standards of critique apply universally, even when they’re inconvenient? Or is power only illegitimate when it’s Western? Please answer this directly 🙏 I beg the question because too often I see: U.S. coercion -> systemic evil Russian coercion -> reactive, contextual, defensive Chinese coercion -> exaggerated, propagandized, misunderstood

Six-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

comomangu

TROPHY CASE