Not liking one choice = liking the other one is peak .world trolling. Where did anyone here simp for Trump?
And for the idiots downvoting: OP literally wrote "every sentence except the last one was entirely true", which means they don't think that Trump is responsible for peace and prosperity. You'd have to be really fucking stupid to think they're "simping for Trump".
I would imagine that LIMs becoming more popular could lead to further improvements in that regard, which might actually make more tailored solutions possible at some point. At least KDE already seems to be working on upstreaming this feature in this merge request, so I'm quite excited to see what might be possible in the future :)
Most of the points you made were about lack of individual freedoms, which I agree is bad, but doesn't come close to actually killing hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people during the past decades like the US did. And why do you keep bringing up Trump? I didn't mention him even once in my comments. I don't care about him, he is a symptom of a much larger issue, not the cause. I'm not just talking about the oppression and killings of people within US borders, but also outside of them, and that's where China doesn't even compare to the US.
If "Trump" and "welfare system" are the only relevant points you got from everything I listed, I'm not sure that I'm the one acting in bad faith. It seems like you purposefully don't even consider all the atrocities of the US outside of their own borders, but why should you, after all they're just some stupid foreigners, right?
Everyone who is even slightly critical of the Western world is a Russian troll, I know. I don't think I'm the one who is acting in bad faith and divorced from reality.
[Addendum]: Something I think you didn't mention yet is the amount of people executed by the Chinese state, even for the simplest "crimes" like possession of drugs. That's about the worst I can think of about China, and it's one aspect that I would actually call a real atrocity that is worse than in the US. But the death penalty shouldn't exist at all, so the US doesn't gain any sympathy points from me in this case either.
Tiananmen Square was not simply a violent escalation of the Chinese state, so not sure if I'd wanna count that, and the "Xianjang Internment camps" still seem like made up bullshit by Adrian Zenz and the likes. But I didn't simply ask what makes China bad, because I'm well aware of that, I asked what makes it worse than the US. Key words here:
Literally every president the US ever had in the past decades
War for almost the entire existence of the country
ICE and their camps
Pretty much daily school shootings and overall gun culture for that matter
Women's rights in the US
Police violence
Horrible healthcare system causing thousands of deaths every year
Increasingly limited LGBTQ rights
War on Drugs
War on Terror
Support of or direct involvement in multiple genocides
Massive surveillance network, not just in the US, but globally
Hundreds of military bases all across the world
Guantanamo Bay
Human rights violations
Preventing people in certain countries from accessing certain much needed medications and extortion of pharmaceutical companies in other countries
Meddling in other countries' political environment and even killing or kidnapping democratically elected heads of states
Creation and funding of terrorist groups and states
Bombing mostly innocent countries to ashes and committing countless war crimes, including the use of nuclear and chemical weapons
I'm probably still missing things...
China overall has bad track record when it comes to everything related to all kinds of individual freedoms, but considering that the US is actually deliberately killing and torturing people to no end (at least on a much, much larger scale than China), I'd say that they are way worse than China. And again, this is no excuse for China, I just think they don't match the cruelty of the American empire.
According to your own comment, Stallman literally said "NOT INDISCRIMINATELY", which to me can only mean Romeo and Juliet laws and/or only after mandatory sex education. Do you fucking know what words mean? Your scenario is completely made up in your head and not something Stallman advocates for, at least not according to the quotes you yourself provided.
So this scenario is something that YOU made up. He also said 14 according to the quotes provided, not 12. Interesting how you're moving the goal posts.
And defending the age of consent to be 14 is not "pro-pedo", and there is no such thing, because as I just explained, pedophilia is a state of something that can't be okay or not okay, favoured or not favoured, it just is. Also it refers to children below that age, so you really need to upgrade your vocabulary and learn the definitions of words in it. Defending this age barrier is called having a fucking brain. So yes, attacking people for saying that 14 is a reasonable age of consent, especially when also mentioning Romeo and Juliet laws, is extremely prudish.