certainly you can avoid being partially culpable for your nation's actions - by dropping out of society, refusing to pay taxes to it, and probably supporting yourself via a life of crime.

If however you are a functioning member of a society and do things to support it you are partially to blame for the things that society does. That amount of blame is not the same for everyone - and for some people it is so minimal it hardly warrants mentioning - but you do have a share.

Refusing to pay taxes is not a viable strategy for ending the war, as it results in your arrest and incarceration.

I did not say it was a viable strategy for ending the war I said it was a viable strategy for minimizing and hopefully removing completely culpability for the actions of one's society.

on edit: as an example we can say with some surety that the one white man in 1800s American that should not be charged with culpability for slavery would be John Brown (although he probably would not feel the same way) - there are undoubtedly others but we can point with some justification at John Brown and say that guy pretty much not to blame for any of that shit.

I'm certainly not recommending that people have to do these things either, just to being clear eyed about things - you can't benefit from your society's actions and then say you don't share any blame from what it does without some extreme dropping out of the system.

I don't agree. One cannot be responsible for one's actions taken under threat of coercive violence. The violent aggressor remains responsible for the outcome in that instance.

So to be clear, as a corollary of the standards you've defined here, 1.3-1.4 billion Chinese have some level of culpability for what's going on with the Uyghurs?

I mean, I can see where you're coming from. But at this point we are really at the fringes of culpability and it's more of an issue of semantics and definitions.

as I also clearly stated earlier "...for some people it is so minimal it hardly warrants mentioning"

so yes, each of those 1.3 billion probably have an atom of culpability, so minimal it hardly warrants mentioning.

I'm a citizen of Denmark, I have some share of culpability in the wrongs my country does - I do a little to minimize those wrongs (when I see them) by voting against the perpetrators but that's about it - I support the country and it is partly my fault because I am too comfortable to do what would be required to completely absolve myself of any culpability because hey, I'm pretty okay (as most people throughout history have said)

You are conflating collective blame with collective punishment, which not an unrelated term.

Collective punishment refers to the punishment communities en masse for the actions of individuals, that may be being harbored by some members of that community.

Just because something is done in a collective manner does not absolve the members of that collective from the outcome.

I'm not conflating them. I think collective blame is generally a bad thing in itself and it is the way of thinking that begets racist and tribal attitudes. It is also inaccurate.

Bernie Sanders is an American who was advocating against the Iraq War. He was clearly not culpable for it, and his causal role was to lower the probability that it would go ahead. This is an example of why it would then be wrong to blame "Americans" as a collective for the Iraq War. Bernie Sanders, a member of that collective, deserves either zero blame or negative blame (if that even exists).

I think this illustrates why it is in fact about responsibility, and thinking about it as blame gets you in confusion.

To extend your example: Bernie Sanders as a citizen, and further a politician, acquires an amount of the collective responsibility for the countries actions in the Iraq War. Bernie Sanders as an activist has more than discharged that responsibility by actively countering it.

A citizen who has done nothing to mitigate or counter the actions is left only with the share of collective responsibility; however large or small that may be, it's real.