Wytwwww

Well it's not black and white. Sometimes doing the right thing even if you have ulterior motives is better than doing nothing.

Africa is tricky due to historical reasons, though. Any western power that would intervene there without the explicit invitation of the local government would be accused of neo-colonialism etc.

That's very hard to answer considering Iraq spent most of the 80s in a very costly and extremely brutal (and even more pointless) war with Iraq.

> Myanmar

Did they? It was occasionally in the news but that's about it.

> but shit like the people of France's New Caledonia trying to get independence doesn't

They had 3 referendums since 2018. So it seems nobody is stopping them from leaving if they wanted to...

So there are no circumstances where armed rebellion is justifiable and the only legitimate type of resistance to state violence is literally trying to drown the state forces in bodies of non-violent protestors?

At a certain point there ceases to be a middle path between violent resistance and complete surrender.

> Protesters which foreign states (China or Russia)

This type of relativism is dishonest. Of course US is speed running the path to authoritarianism but its not quite there. e.g. morally it would be perfectly acceptable to support weapons to protestors in Russia and not the other way around.

The Iranian regime is objectively evil, period. Regardless of what honest or dishonest motives foreign actors might or might not have.

> with western countries also openly declaring their intent to destabilize Iran

As opposed to standing idly by when the regime 'stabilizes' the country by murdering thousands of people? It's well past the stage where non violent protest or resistance stopped being a viable option..

> found a company in the US that has access to the entire 50 states and all of the investors therein

Yes but tech companies and startups are still highly concentrated in a handful of locations.

> The difference is this, some try to impose their opinions on society

So literally Musk and his pals?

> society’s well-being should stop meddling.

So again, Musk et al.? I'm really confused... what are you trying to say. That only some people are allowed to meddle while everyone else should shut up and mind their own business? How do you determine that? Wealth? Political opinions? Class? Race?

> The elected representative of the country made

Elected by 23.41%? What about the remaining 76.50%? Also 30% didn't even vote.

Also what about the president of Poland and other victims of the nazis? Did they "exonerate" him?

Of course to be fair its hard to blame a drug addict who seemingly lacks self control for his erratic public behavior.

> seems performative

If those people stop buying Tesla's cars and that hurts its share price its not performative anymore.

> a representative of Jews

So if a Trump made a Twitter post "exonerating" someone who said something awful about America that would be the same? Because he represents 100% of the country.

Almost half of the countries hates Netanyahu and he's only in charge because of the support from far-right.

Regardless of this you think that a certain limited subsection of Israeli population who share Netanyahu and not the millions of Israeli's who don't let alone all the people who are Jewish are not allowed to have an opinion about his actions? Rather a silly thing to say.

> but if any of my 20 employees did the same

You could all then march around the office or even out on the street with your hands raised. Surely nobody but snowflakes could be offended by that.

> he's a friend to the Jewish community

So? Does that means nobody else is allowed to have an opinion about the salute that he made. Sure he's pro Israel, that's not uncommon at all amongst the far right these days.

> who might have been offended by his gesture

What about the people who seem to be highly offended by people who have been offended by his gesture. What do you call them?

Median not the mean(average). So no, not mathematically..

PPP adjusted median household disposable income per capita (with social transfers like public healtchae and stuff) in US was $62k back in 2022. West Virginia is ~72% of the national median. So Sweden?

Of course, money obviously isn't everything (not /s). And income inequality is much higher in WV than in Sweden. It's actually higher than in any European country. Which makes comparisons like this rather tricky (it's not even rich vs poor but median vs poor which is the problem in the US when you compare it to Europe).

The most equal US state (Utah) is still more unequal than the EU country which has the highest income inequality ( Bulgaria).

Interestingly enough before taxes France, Finland, Italy, UK etc. have comparable income inequality to the US.

West Virginia isn't the poorest state though (e.g. it's about on par with New Mexico). Mississippi and Louisiana are.