4 ms·

> if China wants to be a world leader equal to or above the US, we need some guarantees that they aren't going to plunder the world for their own nationalism.

> if China wants to be a world leader equal to or above the US, we need some guarantees that they aren't going to plunder the world for their own nationalism. While I'm personally incompatible with many (most?) of the Chinese values as seen from the west, I'm sure most Chinese appreciate them as they came attached to personal prosperity like their parents never dreamed. You believe US values are or should be generally accepted by the world as "the gold standard" for everyone. Did you have to handwave anything and say "yeah, except that, and that, and..."? Or "but what about what they do?" This is a very self-centric view of the world. Chinese nationalism doesn't agree with me, but neither does yours. The difference between the 2 is that I'm on your nationalism's good (less bad?) side, so it suits me today. Most of the world is on their bad side and do not share your enthusiasm about your values. Many other Western countries are already distancing themselves from the US with regards to many actions (take as an example the Iran sanctions) because it turns out in the end it shares the same "plunder the world" principles. Perhaps a bit more carrot, less stick than the Chinese one. Even citizens are showing less and less appreciation for it in the streets. I applaud the fact that they are free to do it, not that they're fearing just less retaliation than the average Chinese would in the same position. I can't unsee that so many condemnation-worthy violations piggy-back on these real values, in the end making the whole thing a "chocolate-poop-cake". It has chocolate, everyone likes chocolate. Just pointing out the hypocrisy of assuming your personal world views and nationalism happen to be universally above the rest and the fix is for everyone else to "feel the pain" of our nationalism until they accept it. If that didn't sound a bit off then you would have used you regular account.

throw_this_one 6y ago
Basically our system is, we want every country to be able to elect their government through some sort of democracy. China's system is, we have a cabal of secretive elites that run the show and they can't be elected or unelected by the people. Which one should be the world standard?
- eirini1 6y ago
  >Basically our system is, we want every country to be able to elect their government through some sort of democracy. you are leaving aside the fact that your system also involves an armed invasion by the USA if a certain country does something the USA doesn't like.
  - throw_this_one 6y ago
    You're basically saying that we should be non-interventionalist. So if a country gets taken over by a dictator, no big. If they kick out our companies and take our tech, no big. If they develop nukes so that they can hold us at ransom, no big. Naive view of the world to think what happens outside your neighborhood is of no concern for you.
    - buran77 6y ago
      > Naive view of the world The irony is blinding here. The kind of entitled opinion that can only be supported by strong ignorance and is only remedied by education. Every one of your arguments can be refuted in half a line just like in all of your other comments. And you'd reject every one of your arguments if they were used against you. Are Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, etc. better off now than they were before being bombed to shit to "fix their dictator or terrorist problem"? Is Iran better off after making a deal with the US and sticking to it? Central America after all the "fight the communists" regime changes? When a country gets taken over by a leader undemocratically elected with a minority of votes should there be a military intervention to fix it? How about when you spy (with every advantage that entails, economic, political, or military) on every other country and citizen on the planet? When you blackmail entire countries to get your economic interests? When your citizens are illegally shot on the streets and abused by corporations but their voice means next to nothing? In the meantime China has seen the biggest economic boom any developed country has ever managed to maintain ever so the US feels threatened and ups the "dictator-like" measures against the world. There's a reason you use a throwaway account. Your opinions aren't controversial, they're embarrassingly immature, uneducated, ignorant of the realities of the world we live in and you don't want that to rub of on you actual account. I guess you're not at risk of being shot in the back by police (or ever reading a book instead of an Alex Jones podcast) so you are still free to maintain this happy view of your "we're definitely not acting like the dictator of the world" system.
- buran77 6y ago
  > some sort of democracy Yeah... "some sort" says it all doesn't it? It's a much deeper discussion that this topic or medium affords. But that very same system took away through various means millions of citizens' right to vote, and routinely generates situations where the will of the majority is overridden by a minority. And there's a lot more where that came from. You are given just enough power to feel in control but not enough to be in control. You have a voice but nobody really has to listen. I grant you that, there are clearly far more freedoms in the western world in general than in China. But there's nothing better about US's system of values than say the Icelandic one (quite visibly the opposite actually). But... It all boils down to one simple fact: the US imposes it's own views on the rest of the world via military and economic measures against anyone who doesn't comply, doesn't have anything truly of value to trade, or threatens that military and economic superiority. See Saudi Arabia, one of US's closest ally vs. China, one of US's biggest enemy. Both have the same values yet get very different ends of the stick. There's nothing making this system better other than the military and economic force behind it. And I'll leave you with a bit of foods for thought: large scale organized crime groups also elected their leaders through "some sort of democracy", and have economic and "military" power to impose their will even over entire countries. What does this say about their system of values? Must be tip top.
  - throw_this_one 6y ago
    Some sort of democracy means the various types of democracy deployed in the world. Switzerland to US, whatever. When did it take away citizens right to vote? You're talking about felons not being able to vote? Yeah I agree with getting rid of that, getting rid of gerrymandering etc. You can be a critic of implementations the system and yet still support the underlying mechanism. You're supposed to feel like you have a say and not BE in control. Yes minority groups will have less power, that is fine. "There's nothing making this system better..." "I grant you there are clearly far more freedoms in the western..." The US will basically spread democracy and capitalism. True capitalism is bad for the entrenched CCP, Russia oligarchs, etc because the US multinationals will inject their capital in the system and take control of everything. Of course they want to keep power. I think there should be some guarantees of the country keeping some ownership over their production. CCP and Russia are trying to lock down their systems and increase their competitive output, so that when they clash with the West they can compete on value/innovation. I'm not saying the system is perfect, it's obviously coopted by different groups. But it is as close to perfect as exists in the world today.

throw_this_one 6y ago

Basically our system is, we want every country to be able to elect their government through some sort of democracy. China's system is, we have a cabal of secretive elites that run the show and they can't be elected or unelected by the people. Which one should be the world standard?

eirini1 6y ago
>Basically our system is, we want every country to be able to elect their government through some sort of democracy. you are leaving aside the fact that your system also involves an armed invasion by the USA if a certain country does something the USA doesn't like.
- throw_this_one 6y ago
  You're basically saying that we should be non-interventionalist. So if a country gets taken over by a dictator, no big. If they kick out our companies and take our tech, no big. If they develop nukes so that they can hold us at ransom, no big. Naive view of the world to think what happens outside your neighborhood is of no concern for you.
  - buran77 6y ago
    > Naive view of the world The irony is blinding here. The kind of entitled opinion that can only be supported by strong ignorance and is only remedied by education. Every one of your arguments can be refuted in half a line just like in all of your other comments. And you'd reject every one of your arguments if they were used against you. Are Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, etc. better off now than they were before being bombed to shit to "fix their dictator or terrorist problem"? Is Iran better off after making a deal with the US and sticking to it? Central America after all the "fight the communists" regime changes? When a country gets taken over by a leader undemocratically elected with a minority of votes should there be a military intervention to fix it? How about when you spy (with every advantage that entails, economic, political, or military) on every other country and citizen on the planet? When you blackmail entire countries to get your economic interests? When your citizens are illegally shot on the streets and abused by corporations but their voice means next to nothing? In the meantime China has seen the biggest economic boom any developed country has ever managed to maintain ever so the US feels threatened and ups the "dictator-like" measures against the world. There's a reason you use a throwaway account. Your opinions aren't controversial, they're embarrassingly immature, uneducated, ignorant of the realities of the world we live in and you don't want that to rub of on you actual account. I guess you're not at risk of being shot in the back by police (or ever reading a book instead of an Alex Jones podcast) so you are still free to maintain this happy view of your "we're definitely not acting like the dictator of the world" system.
buran77 6y ago
> some sort of democracy Yeah... "some sort" says it all doesn't it? It's a much deeper discussion that this topic or medium affords. But that very same system took away through various means millions of citizens' right to vote, and routinely generates situations where the will of the majority is overridden by a minority. And there's a lot more where that came from. You are given just enough power to feel in control but not enough to be in control. You have a voice but nobody really has to listen. I grant you that, there are clearly far more freedoms in the western world in general than in China. But there's nothing better about US's system of values than say the Icelandic one (quite visibly the opposite actually). But... It all boils down to one simple fact: the US imposes it's own views on the rest of the world via military and economic measures against anyone who doesn't comply, doesn't have anything truly of value to trade, or threatens that military and economic superiority. See Saudi Arabia, one of US's closest ally vs. China, one of US's biggest enemy. Both have the same values yet get very different ends of the stick. There's nothing making this system better other than the military and economic force behind it. And I'll leave you with a bit of foods for thought: large scale organized crime groups also elected their leaders through "some sort of democracy", and have economic and "military" power to impose their will even over entire countries. What does this say about their system of values? Must be tip top.
- throw_this_one 6y ago
  Some sort of democracy means the various types of democracy deployed in the world. Switzerland to US, whatever. When did it take away citizens right to vote? You're talking about felons not being able to vote? Yeah I agree with getting rid of that, getting rid of gerrymandering etc. You can be a critic of implementations the system and yet still support the underlying mechanism. You're supposed to feel like you have a say and not BE in control. Yes minority groups will have less power, that is fine. "There's nothing making this system better..." "I grant you there are clearly far more freedoms in the western..." The US will basically spread democracy and capitalism. True capitalism is bad for the entrenched CCP, Russia oligarchs, etc because the US multinationals will inject their capital in the system and take control of everything. Of course they want to keep power. I think there should be some guarantees of the country keeping some ownership over their production. CCP and Russia are trying to lock down their systems and increase their competitive output, so that when they clash with the West they can compete on value/innovation. I'm not saying the system is perfect, it's obviously coopted by different groups. But it is as close to perfect as exists in the world today.