In the first place I think a better way to establish “is life in this given place good”, would be to address to good vs bad in that place, as opposed to the good in that place vs the bad everywhere else.

If you must make the point through comparisons, using the weakest possible arguments while standing in for the opposing side makes it seem you’ve either want to misrepresent it, or don’t feel secure enough in your position.

I could get into the factual claims that could be challenged but maybe that was the AI. There’s absolutely an argument that Western media and cultures create intense, xenophobic biases, but there are more compelling ways to make it.

Using a one-sided narrative to counter a one-sided narrative comes off as disingenuous to me. Despite Marx’s urging, the US turns out to be the place where a worker can strike with his union and own a gun.

Revenue stream

Harsh but true. When you take away those that actively supports the regime, then those that are apathetic, that’s well over half the population. A present day Boston tea party would mostly result in mass anger over sweet tea availability.

Then those few that remain may not want to risk getting their skulls cracked, legally run over and declared terrorists by the institutions they’re asking to change. It simply doesn’t leave the critical mass necessary to have thousands in the streets.