3 ms·

Looking at the historical record, an implosion of the CCP and infighting seems equally likely.

082349872349872 6y ago
I remember both "islamofascism" and "weapons of mass destruction". Those were not only historical, they were even this century.
- aww_dang 6y ago
  I'm not sure what that has to do with my comment. The problem with whataboutism is that even if you can establish equivalence (you haven't) it doesn't refute the underlying statement. Furthermore, in this case it may assume that I have some desire to defend the US's former middle eastern policy. It is not impossible to dislike both in varying degrees. Although it is illogical, it is an effective way to derail the discussion. I admit that much.
  - 082349872349872 6y ago
    It was agreeing with your comment. As your comment points out, the current $BOOGEYMAN is probably not as strong as sold. My comment was intended to say that, with hindsight, not only have all the recent @BOOGEYMEN not been existential threats (for the US in particular, let alone "The West" in general), a recent one was even fabricated. Rumsfeld on looting as a sign of freedom: > "While no one condones looting, on the other hand, one can understand the pent-up feelings that may result from decades of repression and people who have had members of their family killed by that regime, for them to be taking their feelings out on that regime, ... I don't think there's anyone in any of those pictures ... [who wouldn't] accept it as part of the price of getting from a repressed regime to freedom."
puranjay 6y ago
Historically, China has never been an aggressively expansionist actor. Don't know if the CCP China would abide by the same values though
- starfallg 6y ago
  China was the dominant power in East Asia for the best part of 2 millennia. It expanded aggressively during periods when it was strong, absorbing many native cultures in the periphery, and had many neighbouring states paying tribute and aligning with its values (e.g. Confucianism). It was an Empire, but the difference (compared with European Empires) being it was not a naval power that established colonies across oceans.

I remember both "islamofascism" and "weapons of mass destruction". Those were not only historical, they were even this century.

aww_dang 6y ago
I'm not sure what that has to do with my comment. The problem with whataboutism is that even if you can establish equivalence (you haven't) it doesn't refute the underlying statement. Furthermore, in this case it may assume that I have some desire to defend the US's former middle eastern policy. It is not impossible to dislike both in varying degrees. Although it is illogical, it is an effective way to derail the discussion. I admit that much.
- 082349872349872 6y ago
  It was agreeing with your comment. As your comment points out, the current $BOOGEYMAN is probably not as strong as sold. My comment was intended to say that, with hindsight, not only have all the recent @BOOGEYMEN not been existential threats (for the US in particular, let alone "The West" in general), a recent one was even fabricated. Rumsfeld on looting as a sign of freedom: > "While no one condones looting, on the other hand, one can understand the pent-up feelings that may result from decades of repression and people who have had members of their family killed by that regime, for them to be taking their feelings out on that regime, ... I don't think there's anyone in any of those pictures ... [who wouldn't] accept it as part of the price of getting from a repressed regime to freedom."

puranjay 6y ago

Historically, China has never been an aggressively expansionist actor. Don't know if the CCP China would abide by the same values though

starfallg 6y ago
China was the dominant power in East Asia for the best part of 2 millennia. It expanded aggressively during periods when it was strong, absorbing many native cultures in the periphery, and had many neighbouring states paying tribute and aligning with its values (e.g. Confucianism). It was an Empire, but the difference (compared with European Empires) being it was not a naval power that established colonies across oceans.