No, of course! I agree with you: individual citizens should have the right to talk about anything, there's free speech after all.
What I mean is that if you are too focused on the (truly horrible) injustices perpetrated by other countries while you consistently turn a blind eye to the injustices perpetrated by your own, then you are not being very useful. For example, in your case, the last three US administrations have been outrageously war-mongering zealots, starting wars all over the globe, participating in the violent overthrow of several governments for petty economic interests, and routinely engaging in extra-judicial killings abroad. While you can talk about whatever you find interesting, your critiques of China are not really going anywhere, but you could be somewhat effective in opposing the violent policies of your own democratic country. Call your representatives! Make them know that you don't approve of U.S. warmongering international politics!
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_English-s...
Thats not what I said. Re-read it? I don't know how you got that from what I wrote.
I'm not talking about entities or countries... I'm talking about human beings with names.
On one side there are people that deprive others of their rights. For example: That includes Xi Jinping. It also includes every person that helped overthrow Iran's democracy. It includes US citizens that attempt to deprive others of their voting rights.
On the other side you have those that advocate for human rights. That includes MLK Jr; Gandhi standing against the british; Tutu against apartheid; the Hong Kong protestors; etc. It also includes everyday people in China that work and advocate for human rights.
"The West" as a term is very broad and sufficiently undefined[0] that it makes a great rhetorical cudgel (both for people who support it and those against it). Unfortunately that same slipperiness makes it challenging for people trying to speak clearly. While "the West" has often been loosely aligned with human rights (some defending/embracing them, some merely claiming them as magic words) they certainly have their problems.
Your argument seems to be do the following: substitute an inferior term into rgbrenner's argument, and then complaining that your chosen term is inferior.
rgbrenner:> The sides aren't US and China, they're X and anti-X
you:> You say the sides are Y and anti-X, but Y isn't X
[0]: Do we mean America? America + Western Europe? Are we including Canada? How about Mexico? All colonial powers? Does Eastern Europe count? How about Australia? Or even Japan? You might have a particular definition in mind, but it's likely other people have different understandings.
Like we should all be ok with an individual being victimized because anyone who wants to say something is guilty of something else by association... I guess the victims should accept that no one should help them. How sad.
The truth is I think people who trot out this line should ask themselves who they're helping. The sides aren't the US vs China... the sides are those on the side of human rights and liberty and those that seek to deprive others of their rights. And when you stand up with your words to help those on the side of anti-human rights, you are the one on the wrong side... and no one on the human rights side gives a damn what you think is hypocritical because those actions were never from our side.