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.