It's becoming increasingly common on the left, particularly third-worldists, who I've come to see as non-white Nazbols. They ultimately value some abstract sense of justice over human life, and that's something I can never sympathize with.
This may get rather political but it's rather interesting how we went from "Marx advocated for critical support for Lincoln against the slavers and Lenin viewed the American revolution as a positive step in the development of productive forces and human progress" to "Some nations are just irredeemably reactionary and must be destroyed".
Part of this was because there had never been a socialist revolution in the west(leading to people on the left having to think about
why things failed), and the socialist-capitalist divide gradually resembling a global color line with the third world looking at socialism but the first world colonizers doing their best to suppress it at home and in the colonies. In a sense capitalism not falling as we(speaking as a leftist) predicted, combined with greater exposure of the crimes of racism and colonialism, radicalized ourselves.
A lot of their points, speaking as a leftist myself, are honestly legitimate. I think that my country has done a shitton of imperialistic and outright genocidal shit in the past(I'm a Canadian and I'm referring to the residential school system), and I don't think many of our prime ministers are worth celebrating(the fact that unlike Lincoln or the US founding fathers, the fathers of confederation IMHO didn't add anything to the pace and development of human progress except found a new nation makes them much easier to dunk on) but like it's impossible to reverse the past for the sins of the present and the west.
There is also very little evidence there would be no first nations genocide or earlier end of slavery if the US was never formed outside of a really short term look at the history of events surrounding the American revolution. If the rebels were crushed by the British it would just mean a different imperialistic power engaging in manifest destiny against indigenous peoples(it's honestly naive to think Britain would respect any treaties with indigenous peoples looking at their behavior in Canada and Australia) and potentially influiencing a toxic ultranationalistic ideology down the line(as how manifest destiny OTL influenced Nazism).
People who want the US or UK or France or <insert colonizer nation or nation that did really shitty things or committed genocide against indigenous population in the past> to get better politically in the socialist sense aren't all Nazbols or western chauvninists wanting to suck the blood dry of every developing country dry to develop a robust welfare state for themselves. Sure these people that do fully embody the negative "western leftist" and "baizuo" sterotypes(*cough*Wasbappin*cough*) tankies and dengists have, or genuinely choose not emphasize with struggles in the global south in ways that scream outright western chauvinistic racism(*cough*Vaush and Xanderthal*cough*), all do exist, but not everyone on twitter critical of china think only white men can build true socialism and wants the US to march in and kill the entire population of China.
It's rather refreshing that TNO deconstructs the logic behind this behavior. Each and every outcome where Germany is destroyed makes the world ironically worse, and the figures most predisposed to destroying everything to get revenge(DSR, Tukh, Omsk) has the biggest chance of drowning the world in blood.
I would also note the benefits of playing precisely those paths we disagree with, precisely because playing them helps us self-articulate our objections. Although aggregated community opinion has identified certain factions as "good" or "bad", the experience of playing both of those sides best allows us, in my opinion, to decide whether popular opinion is right and, most importantly, why. A person who only plays faction x because their ideology matches their IRL identification is missing out on two opportunities.
First, their subscription to that specific faction may, as Twiggierjet noted, lead them to gloss over valid objections to such systems. Even if you still like your imperfect political avatar at the end of a game, noting their imperfections can be a valid blueprint for deciding whether your own adherence has led you to make comparable mistakes (but obviously on a much smaller scale, as I presume none of us are heads of state or suspiciously-idealistic warlords). And even if your experience is (much) less profound than a complete ideological realignment, you can still better articulate your concerns about initially-benign paths. For example: from a narrative standpoint, I like Mikhail II a lot. He's got an inspiring underdog narrative predicated on the brave personal decision to labor for a better future despite contemporary challenges. It could be tempying to view Mikhail as a benevolent AuthDem Tsar and his moves toward constitutional monarchy as successful due to his initiative. And yet, from an objective standpoint I have to acknowledge that his regime is flawed precisely because of its monarchic qualities (no one can guarantee the relatively-less experienced Mikhail will make the right decisions, irrespective of his benevolent intentions; and even if he does his successor(s) may not). After this playthrough, I believe my political opinions are only improved by accepting Chita's reformist path as a flawed but engaging experience. People who only play their favored side are more likely to do so with rose-tinted glasses, missing out on the chance to critically engage with viewpoints they're invested in.
Second, deliberately avoiding factions because you already know they're "bad" may prevent players from better understanding what makes them unfavorable. These cases can be split into two groups. The obviously evil sides, whose wrongdoings are for the most part self-evident, are certainly worth playing because you can see if you successfully predicted their misdeeds. But a very interesting counterpart to these are the "ambiguously monstrous", so to speak. TNO presents factions that come from demonstrably flawed backgrounds, continue to commit heinous acts during the playable narrative, but produce non-dystopic outcomes. These paths can valuably inspire us to examine our opinions on such groups and meta-analyze how we personally judge societies (again probably an overly-profound expectation for a paradox mod, but who knows?). I know someone who wholeheartedly objects to Samara/ROA, condemning their collaborationism. Over the course of his playthrough, his viewpoint evolved. By the end, he still strongly disapproved of all of Samara's paths, but his objections evolved from a sort of deterministic viewpoint ("they were collaborators so their subsequent actions are tainted") to more policy-based/practical criticisms ("Okhtan only being able to smash the piggy-bank once leaves him and his state on borrowed time, Bunyachenko will sell out his own country to win a war, and Zykov's democracy is fragile at best or a dangerous illusion with good PR at worst"). I'm not saying everyone's going to have this experience, but I do believe those who reflexively avoid predesignated factions or dismiss them by begging the question ("X is bad because they're the state that follows X-ism") are missing out on the chance to better articulate their opposition and discover new criticisms from their peers. I know I have.
Well I tend to mostly only agree with libsoc and some of the authsocs, as well as the really lefty socdems, and why people stan fascist bastards like Matkovsky or Gumilov is beyond me, but this dosen't mean that we can only play as the faction that we enjoy. There are a few factions I'm genuinely triggered by like Amur that I really don't want to invest myself in(through call me a hypocrite: I did find my AB playthrough rather entertaining despite the AB being even worse because of how over the top Vagner and Velimir's evil are), but I think one of TNO's best points is nuance, there is humanity in even the worst factions, and not understanding that only makes it easier for us to embrace the evils present in these factions. Not to mention that some factions are genuinely fun to play as. Like I despise Thatcher IRL but I had fun trying to be a Francis Urquhart expy and controlling my house of cards.
It's a testament to TNO's writing how it can make sympathy arcs and even outright redeeming arcs for some characters on the far right end of the spectrum at a time when there is mounting opinion that such arcs are somehow fascist enabling.
Like I don't think Samara can genuinely make up for what they did, but I really did enjoy playing as authdem!Samara and kicking Rodzaevsky down(I specifically used deleteunits to set up Rodzaevsky as my final enemy), it felt like that even if Zykov's democracy is fragile or outright manipulative and he can't redeem his personal guilt, he can try to, and that arc, that attempt makes it all the more gripping and engaging.