4 ms·

I'm excited to see how the world will turn out with new leadership, absolutely nothing wrong with progress/trying new things.

naiveai 8y ago
Yes, and Xi Jinping is a good candidate for that leadership. Just because, oh, new leadership.
- okal 8y ago
  In many ways, yes. I think Americans tend to underestimate how incredibly damaging US foreign policy has been to massive chunks of the world. The same cannot be said of China. To grossly overgeneralize: China sucks for Chinese people. America sucks for non-Americans¹, and that's only become worse in the recent past. It's something I welcome, with some reluctance. ¹ I mean this in global terms. Not referring to immigrants.
  - eunoia 8y ago
    If you think "China sucks for Chinese people", please explain why you also seem to believe they would treat others any better than their own?
    - okal 8y ago
      They don't treat other people better. Chinese foreign policy is generally indifferent to the politics of their trade partners. China doesn't intervene, for better or worse, in the running of other countries. There are no Chinese analogs to America's unambiguously disastrous adventures in Iran (Mosaddegh), Iraq, Afghanistan, Apartheid South Africa, Chile (Allende), Vietnam etc. America's main success, in my opinion, has been the ability to cast itself, and perhaps more importantly see itself as one of the good guys - if not the Good Guy™ - while simultaneously setting half the world on fire. China has no such pretensions.
      - rm_-rf_slash 8y ago
        You are partially right, but China does seek significant control of the world outside of China’s borders. The troubles surrounding a major port at Sri Lanka (to say nothing about the South China Sea) is indicative of what a Chinese world order might look like. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/25/world/asia/china-sri-lanka-port.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/25/world/asia/china-sri-lank...
        okal 8y ago
        Absolutely. My own country's main sea port faces the same threat, because our government has been pigging out on easy Chinese credit, and I still believe that a Chinese global hegemony would be preferable (from a utilitarian standpoint) to the American one. What China is pursuing in a lot of the "Global South" is nothing short of soft colonization, and is the subject of a lot of debate/thinkpieces/Twitter outrage in these parts. It might tell you something that so many of us, after looking at what's on offer, would still rather give this a try than maintain the status quo.
      - lliamander 8y ago
        > China doesn't intervene, for better or worse, in the running of other countries I'm not sure Taiwan agrees with you. One could also argue about Tibet. I also remember hearing they are fairly involved in Africa, but I don't recall the exact details (so I could be off there).
        okal 8y ago
        That's an oversimplification. Both the ROC, and the PRC lay claim to each other. I agree with you on Tibet. There's no defending that. I'm not a fan of Chinese foreign or domestic policy. I still think it's vastly preferable (for the vast majority of people outside their own borders) to American. I'm Kenyan. I know the extent of their involvement in my country. My statements are grounded in that experience.
      - eunoia 8y ago
        I think you have an interesting point about America's tendency to wrap itself in the mythos of the "Good Guy" and the inherent hypocrisy between our words and actions. But with that being said, I think you're making an unfair comparison between two countries. America has been the world hegemon for ~70 years. Have we abused that power at times? Absolutely. Would China abuse the same power given the opportunity? Most certainly. It's human nature. It would appear as though you're confusing relative weakness (i.e. their current inability to project their values upon the entire world) with virtue. If they had that power, they would probably use it like every other powerful country has over the course in human history. > China doesn't intervene, for better or worse, in the running of other countries. Taiwan and Tibet would like a word.
- dang 8y ago
  Please don't post unsubstantive comments, especially on divisive topics.
tomp 8y ago
Hasn't an autocratic surveillance state been tried before?
tengbretson 8y ago
I think I can be pretty confident in saying that a global super power not founded on enlightenment ideas will be an objectively worse place to live.
- InfiniteBeing 8y ago
  It's frightening to think of a world controlled by China although Western societies are heading in China's direction and left wingers have no problem eroding free speech rights...
  - swarnie_ 8y ago
    I would consider myself to the right on the political spectrum although i know where left vs. right sit are a bit different in Europe vs. the US. This site is very much America-centric so any criticisms of the holy land is taken poorly. If you actually reflected on the last 20 years without bias you would be able to understand why the developed world is considering a new flag to rally behind.
- Leary 8y ago
  What type of enlightenment ideas led to the invasion of Iraq in 2003?

naiveai 8y ago

Yes, and Xi Jinping is a good candidate for that leadership. Just because, oh, new leadership.

okal 8y ago
In many ways, yes. I think Americans tend to underestimate how incredibly damaging US foreign policy has been to massive chunks of the world. The same cannot be said of China. To grossly overgeneralize: China sucks for Chinese people. America sucks for non-Americans¹, and that's only become worse in the recent past. It's something I welcome, with some reluctance. ¹ I mean this in global terms. Not referring to immigrants.
- eunoia 8y ago
  If you think "China sucks for Chinese people", please explain why you also seem to believe they would treat others any better than their own?
  - okal 8y ago
    They don't treat other people better. Chinese foreign policy is generally indifferent to the politics of their trade partners. China doesn't intervene, for better or worse, in the running of other countries. There are no Chinese analogs to America's unambiguously disastrous adventures in Iran (Mosaddegh), Iraq, Afghanistan, Apartheid South Africa, Chile (Allende), Vietnam etc. America's main success, in my opinion, has been the ability to cast itself, and perhaps more importantly see itself as one of the good guys - if not the Good Guy™ - while simultaneously setting half the world on fire. China has no such pretensions.
    - rm_-rf_slash 8y ago
      You are partially right, but China does seek significant control of the world outside of China’s borders. The troubles surrounding a major port at Sri Lanka (to say nothing about the South China Sea) is indicative of what a Chinese world order might look like. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/25/world/asia/china-sri-lanka-port.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/25/world/asia/china-sri-lank...
      - okal 8y ago
        Absolutely. My own country's main sea port faces the same threat, because our government has been pigging out on easy Chinese credit, and I still believe that a Chinese global hegemony would be preferable (from a utilitarian standpoint) to the American one. What China is pursuing in a lot of the "Global South" is nothing short of soft colonization, and is the subject of a lot of debate/thinkpieces/Twitter outrage in these parts. It might tell you something that so many of us, after looking at what's on offer, would still rather give this a try than maintain the status quo.
    - lliamander 8y ago
      > China doesn't intervene, for better or worse, in the running of other countries I'm not sure Taiwan agrees with you. One could also argue about Tibet. I also remember hearing they are fairly involved in Africa, but I don't recall the exact details (so I could be off there).
      - okal 8y ago
        That's an oversimplification. Both the ROC, and the PRC lay claim to each other. I agree with you on Tibet. There's no defending that. I'm not a fan of Chinese foreign or domestic policy. I still think it's vastly preferable (for the vast majority of people outside their own borders) to American. I'm Kenyan. I know the extent of their involvement in my country. My statements are grounded in that experience.
    - eunoia 8y ago
      I think you have an interesting point about America's tendency to wrap itself in the mythos of the "Good Guy" and the inherent hypocrisy between our words and actions. But with that being said, I think you're making an unfair comparison between two countries. America has been the world hegemon for ~70 years. Have we abused that power at times? Absolutely. Would China abuse the same power given the opportunity? Most certainly. It's human nature. It would appear as though you're confusing relative weakness (i.e. their current inability to project their values upon the entire world) with virtue. If they had that power, they would probably use it like every other powerful country has over the course in human history. > China doesn't intervene, for better or worse, in the running of other countries. Taiwan and Tibet would like a word.
dang 8y ago
Please don't post unsubstantive comments, especially on divisive topics.

tomp 8y ago

Hasn't an autocratic surveillance state been tried before?

tengbretson 8y ago

I think I can be pretty confident in saying that a global super power not founded on enlightenment ideas will be an objectively worse place to live.

InfiniteBeing 8y ago
It's frightening to think of a world controlled by China although Western societies are heading in China's direction and left wingers have no problem eroding free speech rights...
- swarnie_ 8y ago
  I would consider myself to the right on the political spectrum although i know where left vs. right sit are a bit different in Europe vs. the US. This site is very much America-centric so any criticisms of the holy land is taken poorly. If you actually reflected on the last 20 years without bias you would be able to understand why the developed world is considering a new flag to rally behind.
Leary 8y ago
What type of enlightenment ideas led to the invasion of Iraq in 2003?