You’re arguing as if you’ve uncovered some moral truth, but your entire position collapses under its own inconsistency.
You claim people in countries like Russia or North Korea aren’t responsible because they’re controlled by systems and leadership. Fine. That’s a defensible position.
But then you turn around and apply the exact opposite standard to the United States.
So which is it?
Are people shaped by systems they don’t fully control, or are they fully morally responsible for everything their government does?
You don’t get to switch between those depending on which country you’re criticizing. That’s not moral clarity. That’s selective reasoning. You’re giving populations you sympathize with the benefit of context, while denying that same context to Americans. That is a textbook double standard.
And then you take it one step further. You generalize that entire population and justify your hostility toward them. That’s not some enlightened stance. It is the same kind of broad brush thinking you claim to oppose, just pointed in a different direction. Your moral high ground depends entirely on ignoring nuance when it is inconvenient.
You also keep insisting your hatred is justified because it is aimed at injustice. No. That is not how that works. Hatred does not become virtuous because you feel strongly about your target. All it is doing here is pushing you into lazy conclusions, like blaming millions of people as if they are a single actor.
If people are influenced by propaganda, limited political choices, and systemic pressure, as you yourself admit in other contexts, then collective guilt falls apart. And if collective guilt falls apart, your justification for hating entire populations falls apart with it. You cannot have it both ways. Either people are products of their systems, in which case your anger should be directed with precision, or they are fully responsible individuals, in which case you need to apply that standard universally, including to places you are currently excusing.
Right now, you are not being principled. You are being inconsistent and then dressing it up as morality.