Yea, I’m hoping they realize they are tripping over themselves just to be a contrarion, but I think that’s a lost cause now.

Gotcha, so your definition is focused entirely on force. I don’t think this definition fits, though, not in prior forms of Imperialism like the Roman Empire or British Empire, and not for modern Imperialism dominated by the US Empire, as it makes no mention of extraction or analysis of why Imperialism exists. For example, the Union defeating the Confederacy, or the Soviets taking Berlin, are both “Imperialism” in your definition.

What Socialists refer to as Imperialism is a form of international extraction. I already linked this Prolewiki article for you, but here’s the basics:

1. The presence of monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life.
2. The merging of bank capital with industrial capital into finance capital controlled by a financial oligarchy.
3. The export of capital as distinguished from the simple export of commodities.
4. The formation of international monopolist capitalist associations (cartels).
5. The territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers.[3] This expansion to Marx’s analysis of capitalist development was one of Lenin’s most important theoretical contributions to political economy.

The PRC, India, Brazil, etc do not fit this, but Western countries absolutely do, especially the US Empire.