I agree that the 'rules based order' is a farce and i apologize for presuming that you wouldn't. How would you characterize your own politics?

That's absolutely fascinating

In what way? What do you find fascinating about it? Say what you mean instead of hiding behind redditor cliches.

a tirade

My comment was all of two sentences long. If that's what you consider a tirade, you're gonna hate what comes next. Of course, we both know the actual reason you chose that word is because you want to paint any disagreement with your self-evidently correct ideas as coming from a place of mental instability. Call me hysterical or delusional next.

ridding the world of obvious evil

This is purely subjective and doesn't actually mean anything. Good and evil are stories for explaining the world to children, adults understand that reality operates on cause and effect. And even on your own terms, you haven't defined evil, so how can it have any meaning that can be shared between us. Nazi Germany and Israel were/are also "ridding the world of obvious evil" from their perspective, am I supposed to just take that nonsense justification at face value because like them, you assume that to be sane and rational, a person must share your prejudices?

You don't have a serious position to take

This is the black hole at the center of the galaxy calling the sun black. Here's a quick summary of the serious position we don't have, courtesy of one of the lengthy essays we don't write:

A Marxist understanding of capitalism leads to anti-imperialism. Anti-imperialism is understood by detractors as a simple rhetorical dressing over simplistic heuristics like “reflexive anti-americanism,” “history repeats itself,” and “the military-industrial complex needs contracts,” but all of these are reductive. Marxists understand that human political leadership in the imperial periphery, whether enlightened or tyrannical, will only be antagonized by empire for one single possible reason: it is getting in the way of market penetration. This is phrased succinctly by Kevin Dooley when criticizing Noam Chomsky’s support for a military alliance between the Kurds and the USA in Syria: “The difference between [Chomsky’s] position and a hard-line anti-imperialist position isn’t tactical. What he’s arguing is simply a violation of anti-imperialist principles based on a fundamentally different understanding of what can drive the empire to act in the world.” [16]

The accusation that anti-imperialists are unconcerned with human rights deserves a sharp rebuke. The USA was born of slavery and genocide, dropped atomic bombs as a matter of political brinkmanship, imported Nazi scientists and installed war criminals like Klaus Barbie and Nobusuke Kishi around the world to defend and advance anti-communist positions [17], and enthusiastically supports gruesome butcherers today. Simply put, Capital has destroyed innumerable countries and murdered hundreds of millions directly and indirectly. It is precisely a concern for the rights of humans that should make one immediately skeptical of any humanitarian posturing by Capital. Anti-imperialism not only means support for the important pro-social projects of states like Cuba, Vietnam, and China; it also means critical support for non-socialist states such as Iran and Russia. Critical support acknowledges that, though instituting various indefensible policies, enemies of empire are not being antagonized because of said policies. The only thing that can drive empire to act in the world is capital accumulation.

You are coping by telling yourself that one of the most widespread ideologies on the planet, with a century and a half of theory behind it and multiple revolutions up on the scoreboard, has no serious positions. It's peak solipsism: you can't understand it or won't bother to, so it must be gibberish.

Authoritarian

What, in your own words, does this term mean? I've had this conversation a thousand times, and nobody has been able to provide an answer that doesn't just boil down to "any use of authority that I personally dislike". Maybe you'll be the first.

Look man, my problem with liberals, aside from the support for nazis and genocide, is that you have a static, shoebox diorama view of the world. Things simply are, good guys are good guys and bad guys are bad guys, and that's that. It's very similar to the more right wing liberals who think that "criminals" are just a group of people that spawn in dark alleys like a video game, and not their own former neighbors driven to desperation by ruthless capitalist plundering. You like that Criminal Bad Guy Luigi, right? I do.

A Marxist view on the other hand, a materialist view, conceives of the world and all it's parts as a machine in motion, each component affecting others and being affected. Vladimir Putin and the Russian Federation did not crawl out of a molten crack in the ground: the US empire created the government and installed him at its head to facilitate the shock doctrine that allowed corporate entities to strip the very profitable flesh from the bones of the former USSR. Western communists did not fall out of a coconut tree: we were liberals who believed sincerely in the stated values of liberalism and could not look past it's rank hypocrisy, violence and racism. I'm not a mindless hostile NPC the game put here to challenge you dawg, I'm you from the future.