That's not exactly true - liberalism is basically focused around promoting individual liberties (as the name indicates). In and of itself, it's not really "left-wing" or "right-wing" (in the same way that authoritarianism is usually not considered "naturally" left-wing or right-wing, although there is admittedly debate on that, since some would argue infringing upon the rights of people to determine their own governance is inherently anti-leftist) - but depending on what aspect of society it is actually defending, liberalism can be left-wing or right-wing.

Specifically, economic liberalism is generally right-wing, since it implies deregulation and less government intervention (and thus, weaker public services and disadvantages for the disenfranchised). However, cultural liberalism (and in the US, this would be called "social" liberalism, which confusingly enough tends to be a different thing in the rest of the world) is more associated with left-wing ideas, as it usually opposes conservative social structures.

The US' Democratic Party is (not entirely, but mostly) liberal from both a social, as well as an economic, point of view. In practice, this means that they're generally more to the left compared to the ultra-conservative social positions of the GOP, but they remain right-wing in terms of how they want to organize society, especially economically speaking.

> I hope to see the termination of dictatorial countries in my lifetime but with extremism lovers in the most powerful one, I'm afraid to see the return of them...

There's always a risk, but if you want to be optimistic, keep in mind that never has humankind been so interconnected and aware of what's going on in the world, compared to any other point in history. People criticize the Internet and social networks, but the fact remains that, thanks to them, anyone in Canada, or the US, or France, or even Russia, can see the injustices happening in places like Iran; and although disinformation circulates more freely, the flipside of that is that knowledge(and truth) is also easier to research, share, and learn. We already saw these networks playing a huge role in the Arab Spring - and while that was only questionably "successful", ultimately the more we progress, and the more people are exposed to the outside world, and different cultures, the more things will improve.

This is the reason that things like gay rights, or religious freedom, have become more widely accepted worldwide; younger generations are exposed to these concepts, learn why they're valuable and what intellectual discussions they can have around them, including from their own geographical cultural perspectives compared to others, and it thus becomes easier to transmit to future generations those values and discussions.

And, on the other hand, while the reactionaries do still exist, and sometimes use increasingly violent means to conserve power (or regress society), they are increasingly viewed as an aberration, by an increasing number of people. It becomes a whole lot harde to take over, introduce fascism, and destroy people's rights, if your basic premise is: "these things that you newer generations have learned are essential freedoms, and great ways to increase your standard of living, well we're taking that away and going back to a state that you know is worse".

So yes, things are improving, very slowly, despite the two, four, or eight steps back that some would like to take (or are currently taking).

I never said "the whole of Africa" was shitty - why are you putting words in my mouth?

All I said was that Africa does have a bunch of shitty regimes, relative to most other places on Earth. This is true - I talked about Afwerki and Kais Saied, but I could've mentioned Paul Biya, or Museveni, or Teodoro Mbasogo, or any number of violent dictators or corrupt governments that have managed to remain in power. In comparison to, say, Europe, it is indisputable that things like freedom of the press, democratic participation and free elections, or the Human Development Index, are lower. While it is true that there are a number of stable regimes with societies that are becoming better to live in, the continent in general, on average, compared to other continents, remains less developed and in the grasp of more dictatorial regimes.

This wasn't a statement intended to generalize the people living in Africa (as, quite obviously, the people from South Africa have a markedly different set of cultures than the people from Kenya, for instance), and it certainly isn't "because they're Africans" or whatever; the simple reason this is the case is that, much like the Middle-East, the continent has been r*ped by centuries of reckless colonization by imperialist powers that care not for cultural boundaries or human rights and have divided the land like fuckin' contestants at a competition for artistic cake-cutting.

This is because Israel can't really just be resumed, on a geopolitical level, to the Palestinian conflict - like most countries, it's a complex country with a multi-faceted society, and complicated relations with the other (also complex) countries surrounding them; and in Israel's case specifically, those relations tend to be even more complicated than the average, due to their unique history in the region.

Also, it's not like Russian fascists genuinely care that much about the Palestinian cause; they're doing it mostly out of opportunism. It's like whenever they bring up the rights of Palestinians (or any other oppressed population, like Black people in America) as whataboutism, and to dunk on "the West". These groups of people are just pawns in their geopolitical rhetoric and strategy.

Unfortunately, it's absolutely not restricted to the Middle East, despite how much they've outdone themselves recently in the "horrible governance" competition.

Beyond the obvious name drops of China, Russia, or North Korea, here's a few one could name:

-A bloody civil war is still going on in Myanmar as we speak, with the military junta in place razing villages and burning children who resist them;
-Tunisia is ruled by the iron fist of an authoritarian psychopath who has essentially appointed himself as Supreme Leader in the past couple of years and destroyed the political institutions of the country;
-Africa in general has a bunch of, well, rather nasty regimes to put it charitably, but you gotta mention Eritrea and Afwerki, under whose rule nearly 10% of the population, in 2018, was living in slavery, the second highest rate on Earth after North Korea (and I doubt the numbers have improved all that much since then);
-Haiti is essentially lacking a significant part of its own government, and has not managed to replace its Prime Minister at all - the country is currently caught in violent anarchy, with gangs engaging in what's close to a war on the territory, and the President himself having stated exterior intervention would be welcome at this point (not to mention a new deadly cholera outbreak).

And the list goes on, there's enough horrible regimes in the world to fill, like, at least a couple pages of a Word document.

I don't get it

I mean, Amazon has always had a trash reputation when it came to treating its workers like humans where I live, and in the stuff I read about it. Not sure I can really talk about some "devolution"

Well, that's disturbing

So, since Americans kill each other off every single year, I guess it's okay if a foreign power comes along, commits egregious acts of genocide in the country, and then never takes responsibility for it or provides reparations?

-> end result of your logic, right there

Wow, the sexism isn't even fuckin disguised at this point. Nice of you to outright come out and say:

"Women can't be good lawmakers, because all women lie, conceal truth, and act".

Your comment's logic is the exact same as if I were to say: "After learning about Bin Laden [who was a man]... it's well known how men can be violent terrorists... all the qualities of good lawmakers"

Thanks for the downvotes, you insecure little manlets - being downvoted by misogynist pricks is a badge of honor for me

Need to bring some whataboutin' up in here

JAAASON

I mean, they already allow marriage between conservatives and people, but you don't see us complaining