It isn’t.

The less share of the pie America takes up, the less it can bully other countries into its evil bullshit. So yeah, this is objectively good.

I think their broader point was “it’s good till it isnt”. It feels like you’re looking at China as a savior. When instead it’s a “Oh, I wouldn’t say you’re free… more like under new management” scenario. They’re good till they aren’t, as we’ve seen with Taiwan.

As much as globalization has connected us, we need to still focus on independent sustainability. Does that mean there becomes a lot of redundancies and costs, yes, but it also grants better independence as we’re clearly seeing what happens when a large power turns evil.

How many bombs has China dropped in the last 50 years? How about America?

This is objectively a good thing.

Physical destruction isn’t the only measurement. What has China done to the Uyghurs? More damage than a bomb there. What about Tibetans? Tienamen Square? There is also their indirect support Russia and that definitely does involve bombs. You can’t just brush it off because “they’re not directly dropping them”. Just because it’s not “shock and awe” doesn’t mean there isn’t death and oppression.

And the US has done all of that, dropped millions of tons of bombs on civilians, and worse, lol.

It is objectively good for the US to lose power and for China to gain power, lol.

When did I say either one was good. Re-read my original comment. My point was for independent power, not just switching from one “master” to another. It would do good for both China and the US to lose their soft power and have a more level shift of independence among nations.

I disagree, obviously.

This doesn’t have to be a simple dualism, there is a third option ie. it would be better for the US to lose power and others (not China) to gain power. The more equally power is distributed in the world the better a shot we have at balance. The last thing the world needs is a “G2”.

I disagree, lol.

Also you think what China has done to the Uyghurs, which is re-education, is worse than bombing them all to death??

Fuck is wrong with you lol?

In all of history, the use of “re-education” has always turned out to be ethnic/cultural genocide.

Right, and it’s immensely preferable to mass rape, pillage, and murder, which is what the west has done for its entire history, including to this day.

No it’s not. It’s not preferable at all, and neither are the other things. I’m against all of it. Your whataboutism means nothing to me.

Great?

Why are you asking me? Are you so incapable of thinking for yourself?

Are you okay, lol?

Oh, you mean you’re just done dealing with the issue and are going to abandon it to be glib and pointless because it didn’t go how you wanted.

Get blocked.

Yes, self censor your crazy ass.

I went to college with an old coal miner who was going to my school for free on a re-education bill after the coal mine he worked at was shut down. I think you just only hear about the creepy “re-education” in the media.

That’s occupational re-education. That is a similar term but not what we’re talking about here. The re-education in question is when colonizers invade a land, kill off natives, steal their children, and send those children to the invader’s schools to be force-fit into their culture.

ysph.yale.edu/…/ukraines-stolen-children-inside-r…

en.wikipedia.org/…/Canadian_Indian_residential_sc…

Well, someone once said give me freedom or give me death. So it’s up for debate I suppose.

Liberals deciding who deserves death, must be a day ending in Y.

You have selected which is the lesser of two evils. That doesn’t mean everyone will make the same choice, that all.

Also everyone decides who deserved to die, nothing special about “liberals” for that. (Also, are Americans liberal? I find all these political jargons confusing)

Sorry about your shitty comment.

Would you rather live in Xinjiang or in Gaza?

Independence, while not a fringe issue, is about as politically unpopular there as ICE is here, for different reasons. use whatever polls you want, or read their own stuff:

www.taiwannews.com.tw/news/6395438

I think, like most global things Americans are passionate about, Taiwan doesn’t want the freedom we want for them. The average resident just want tomorrow’s experience to resemble today’s

I mean, yeah, but China is worse than the USA so it picking up USA’s share is not better.

Worse in what? For example, China didn’t invade or bomb another country. From a World point of view USA is THE worst country in the world. OK, second worst, nobody can match Israel’s atrocities.

China didn’t invade or bomb another country.

Tibet and Hong Kong might disagree.
Taiwan also isn’t a fan.

Tibet is China. Hong Kong is China. On the other hand, Venezuala, Vietnam, Iran, Yemen, Lebanon, Serbia, Syria, Iraq, Cuba, Laos, Cambodia, … non of them are USA. Plus USA is the only nation that burn alive with Naplm bombs 100000 civilians in one night and droped two nuclear bombs on civilians.

Bottom line, China is not ideal but USA is way much worse, from the World point of view and that for Americans is the ugly truth they don’t want to look at.

Hong Kong maybe, but Tibet is no more China than Cuba is part of the US. They’re two distinct cultures with different histories. You might as well say Korea is China, Vietnam is China.

I said “China is not ideal, but the US is much worse.” I am NOT defending the Chinese occupation of Tibet (or whatever that is), but the US is much worse than that. Only Nazi Germany, Stalin’s USSR, and modern Israel are worse nations than the US today. China, despite their crimes, is much better. From a world perspective.

Tibet is China. Hong Kong is China.

Again, they might disagree

Plus USA is the only nation that burn alive with Naplm bombs 100000 civilians in one night and droped two nuclear bombs on civilians.

Are you from China, perchance?
You did comparably atrocious things to a comparable number of your own citizens.

Oh, and my own country (Russia) seems to be eager to one day one up you on that, btw.

Hong Kong on paper is, Tibet definitely was an invasion. Maybe you mean to say China assimilates?

Edit: like China is Britain of neo-colonialism and USA is France

Hmmmm the fact that China says Hong Kong and Tibet are part of China but much of Hong Kong and Tibet disagrees tells me there’s more to the story there.

I’m not even a China hater but…c’mon lol

Yes, 100% agree.

The question is if China will do what all prime players do, which is become an empire that enriches itself at the expense of ther rest of the world.

Not being a massive a dick is a good strategy when you’re #2. There are so many companies that do “the right thing” because it gives them a competitive advantage compared to their #1 competitor who is doing the “wrong thing” because they have the dominance to do so, but the instant #2 becomes #1, they adopt #1 strategies.

Perfect example is when X-Box tried to digitize games and limit physical media. Playstation countered with a brutal add on the one-step method to transfer your game to a friend (step 1: give them the game). Now that X-Box has fucked it’s market position, it is Playstation that is pushing to end physical media.

The perfect world is one in which you don’t have to trust anyone, where there is always a healthy ecosystem that gives you options and prevents any one controlling everything to their benefit.

But right now, the world’s biggest problem is not China or Russia: it’s the US.

China is already an empire that enriches itself at the expense of the rest of the world via its non market practices. Inequal market access / lack of reciprocity have led to deficits that hinder development in many emerging markets. The belt and road initiative and China’s debt to sovereignty swap strategy allows them to build and own key infrastructure / ports around the world similar to US maintaining a global / hegemonic presence with its military bases.

I don’t think China wants to rule the world the way the US does. Its traditionally a very inward looking civilization. But I doubt it has qualms over potentially harming others to enrich itself, which is the case for any empire.

I don’t know, man, building infrastructure to benefit the country you’re building it in sure sounds better than overthrowing socialists governments by arming child-raping rebels then giving them money through the IMF to enrich themselves to justify austerity measures that permanently keep the country from developing.

Yes the Western playbook is well known. I wouldn’t be too quick to trust the Chinese approach though. China has already reclaimed sovereignty over ports via debt trap diplomacy in regions like Sri Lanka.

This certainly is not as bad as American actions on the global stage but China is fairly new to being a global power (in the modern era at least, not historically) so the long term strategy remains to be seen.

Yes, I just find it’s good to have a complete picture. Talking to a lot of people about the problems with China is a lot like talking to people in 2001 about the problems with Saddam Hussein… that is to say, it’s just a pretext for war or other skulduggery.

Depends who owns the infrastructure after it is built, and how payment is structured.

What China did in Iran is a lot more sinister, they provided guns and bombs to the IRGC and Ayatollah who starved and shot their own citizens earlier this year in higher numbers than the death toll from the war with the USA.

China also promoted and helped reelect Donald Trump using TikTok which is now and has always been operated out of Beijing.

I’m rapidly losing faith in the position that China is worse than the US.