5 ms·

> they are backed by an entity which has plans for global dominance and are not exactly aligned with American interests The irony is that each of the entities

> they are backed by an entity which has plans for global dominance and are not exactly aligned with American interests The irony is that each of the entities has plans for global dominance, which is incompatible with the plans and interests the other one has. The sad part is that it turns out the US is willing to forgo its values if this gives them a leg up on China. Makes any future rhetoric on values and morals seem a bit empty. * * It has been pointed out that perhaps "empty rhetoric" wasn't the best choice of words. Maybe "rhetoric that no longer has any basis in reality whatsoever" sums it up better.

endogui 6y ago
Rhetoric about US values has been empty since Guantanamo Bay started housing "foreign militants". Europe seems to be the only place in the West where a commitment to human rights is sincere.
- zeckalpha 6y ago
  It started long before that.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- bzb4 6y ago
  There’s no right to free speech in Europe, since for example many countries have laws against blasphemy.
  - mmrezaie 6y ago
    Like where in Europe?
    - zo1 6y ago
      UK for starters. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_and_Religious_Hatred_Act_2006 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_and_Religious_Hatred_Ac... Blasphemy laws have just been repackaged essentially under "anti hate speech" laws. They're palatable to the media and at the same time selectively-applicable which is ideal for population control.
- mmm_grayons 6y ago
  Really? 27% of Germans support the right to speech that offends minority groups, and less than half of Europeans as a whole [0]. A Swedish man was convicted for producing art that was deemed racist, and the owner of the gallery that displayed it was fined [1]. A man was famously prosecuted for a video of a dog performing a nazi salute [2]. A refugee may be expelled from Denmark after he left comments "celebrating" the Charlie Hebdo attacks [3]. I'm not saying these excuse things America has done, but you saying that Europe is the last place where liberty is valued is patently ridiculous. [0]: https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/catos-letter-v16n3.pdf https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/catos-let... [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/22/swedish-artist-sentenced-racist-art-dan-park https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/22/swedish-artist... [2]: https://www.newsweek.com/youtuber-count-dankula-avoids-jail-following-hate-crime-conviction-teaching-896831 https://www.newsweek.com/youtuber-count-dankula-avoids-jail-... [3]: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/refugee-deported-denmark-facebook-charlie-hebdo-islamist-terror-attack-copenhageb-a7329666.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/refugee-depo...
  - freeone3000 6y ago
    Reasonable people can disagree about the limits of free speech, and when it becomes an attack on others. The American obsession with allowing Nazis and racists has done nothing to improve the lives of its people.
    - mmm_grayons 6y ago
      I think you're missing the point. An "attack on others" isn't something that most Americans should be limited, if you mean by attack what I believe you do (please clarify). I'm not sure why you think the power to limit speech can't be abused: even with strict protections, we've had awful majoritarian policies like the Sedition Act and McCarthyism. We protect everyone, Nazis and racists included, because if we give the government freedom to restrict the content of speech it will be abused when the "other side" gets power.
      - pinkfoot 6y ago
swebs 6y ago
The USA has been the sole military superpower for 30 years now, with more power than the rest of the world combined. If they wanted global dominance, they'd already have it long ago.
- hoseja 6y ago
  Is MAD not a thing anymore?
- buran77 6y ago
  "Plans for global dominance" can mean more than just achieving it. One can also plan to maintain it or grow it. Perhaps it's just semantics but an important distinction. In this particular case China's plan to achieve global dominance is in stark opposition to the US's plan to maintain global dominance.
  - swebs 6y ago
    >the US's plan to maintain global dominance I really don't know what you're trying to say. If the USA achieved global dominance, there would be no China. There would only be the USA. Globally. Obviously, that's not the case.
    - buran77 6y ago
      > If the USA achieved global dominance, there would be no China. There would only be the USA That's really not what those words mean. "Dominance" is the fact or state of being dominant, not the state of being the only one in existence. So what I said is that the US dominates the world (geo-political, economic, military, etc.). Let's put it in more simple terms. If Mike Tyson dominated a boxing match it really doesn't mean he was prancing around alone in the ring. Just that if anyone contested that dominance he'd punch them harder. And if that didn't work he'd bite of their ear. Which is a far more appropriate analogy than it would first seem.
    - anthk 6y ago
      >. If the USA achieved global dominance, there would be no China. And that day they would be no US West and East coast... populated. You know what I mean. Also, China owns the US economy by buying its debt. Try to crash down China, and look how the Dow Jones gets more sunk than the Marianas.
zarathustreal 6y ago
Rhetoric is empty by definition, its purpose is to persuade. Also you’re speaking from a global point of view by addressing “the US” and “China” versus “our country” and “their country” so the idea that there exists “values and morals” in that context is also obviously incorrect as each culture has its own set. Even within a given culture there exists different sets. I’d go as far as to say that with the dissolution of Christianity as a cohesive unifying religion within the US values and morality no longer exist as such. Each person’s beliefs change almost daily given how fast information and ideas spread on the internet and social networks. Appeals to morality are essentially dead in my opinion
- starfallg 6y ago
  >I’d go as far as to say that with the dissolution of Christianity as a cohesive unifying religion within the US values and morality no longer exist as such. Each person’s beliefs change almost daily given how fast information and ideas spread on the internet and social networks. Appeals to morality are essentially dead in my opinion. Yet in other developed countries (like many in Europe) where Christianity is no longer the dominant cultural institution, there is more social cohesiveness. Religion in the US has been weaponised for political ends and became a means of tribal division in society.

endogui 6y ago

Rhetoric about US values has been empty since Guantanamo Bay started housing "foreign militants". Europe seems to be the only place in the West where a commitment to human rights is sincere.

zeckalpha 6y ago
It started long before that.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
bzb4 6y ago
There’s no right to free speech in Europe, since for example many countries have laws against blasphemy.
- mmrezaie 6y ago
  Like where in Europe?
  - zo1 6y ago
    UK for starters. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_and_Religious_Hatred_Act_2006 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_and_Religious_Hatred_Ac... Blasphemy laws have just been repackaged essentially under "anti hate speech" laws. They're palatable to the media and at the same time selectively-applicable which is ideal for population control.
mmm_grayons 6y ago
Really? 27% of Germans support the right to speech that offends minority groups, and less than half of Europeans as a whole [0]. A Swedish man was convicted for producing art that was deemed racist, and the owner of the gallery that displayed it was fined [1]. A man was famously prosecuted for a video of a dog performing a nazi salute [2]. A refugee may be expelled from Denmark after he left comments "celebrating" the Charlie Hebdo attacks [3]. I'm not saying these excuse things America has done, but you saying that Europe is the last place where liberty is valued is patently ridiculous. [0]: https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/catos-letter-v16n3.pdf https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/catos-let... [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/22/swedish-artist-sentenced-racist-art-dan-park https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/22/swedish-artist... [2]: https://www.newsweek.com/youtuber-count-dankula-avoids-jail-following-hate-crime-conviction-teaching-896831 https://www.newsweek.com/youtuber-count-dankula-avoids-jail-... [3]: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/refugee-deported-denmark-facebook-charlie-hebdo-islamist-terror-attack-copenhageb-a7329666.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/refugee-depo...
- freeone3000 6y ago
  Reasonable people can disagree about the limits of free speech, and when it becomes an attack on others. The American obsession with allowing Nazis and racists has done nothing to improve the lives of its people.
  - mmm_grayons 6y ago
    I think you're missing the point. An "attack on others" isn't something that most Americans should be limited, if you mean by attack what I believe you do (please clarify). I'm not sure why you think the power to limit speech can't be abused: even with strict protections, we've had awful majoritarian policies like the Sedition Act and McCarthyism. We protect everyone, Nazis and racists included, because if we give the government freedom to restrict the content of speech it will be abused when the "other side" gets power.
    - pinkfoot 6y ago

swebs 6y ago

The USA has been the sole military superpower for 30 years now, with more power than the rest of the world combined. If they wanted global dominance, they'd already have it long ago.

hoseja 6y ago
Is MAD not a thing anymore?
buran77 6y ago
"Plans for global dominance" can mean more than just achieving it. One can also plan to maintain it or grow it. Perhaps it's just semantics but an important distinction. In this particular case China's plan to achieve global dominance is in stark opposition to the US's plan to maintain global dominance.
- swebs 6y ago
  >the US's plan to maintain global dominance I really don't know what you're trying to say. If the USA achieved global dominance, there would be no China. There would only be the USA. Globally. Obviously, that's not the case.
  - buran77 6y ago
    > If the USA achieved global dominance, there would be no China. There would only be the USA That's really not what those words mean. "Dominance" is the fact or state of being dominant, not the state of being the only one in existence. So what I said is that the US dominates the world (geo-political, economic, military, etc.). Let's put it in more simple terms. If Mike Tyson dominated a boxing match it really doesn't mean he was prancing around alone in the ring. Just that if anyone contested that dominance he'd punch them harder. And if that didn't work he'd bite of their ear. Which is a far more appropriate analogy than it would first seem.
  - anthk 6y ago
    >. If the USA achieved global dominance, there would be no China. And that day they would be no US West and East coast... populated. You know what I mean. Also, China owns the US economy by buying its debt. Try to crash down China, and look how the Dow Jones gets more sunk than the Marianas.

zarathustreal 6y ago

Rhetoric is empty by definition, its purpose is to persuade. Also you’re speaking from a global point of view by addressing “the US” and “China” versus “our country” and “their country” so the idea that there exists “values and morals” in that context is also obviously incorrect as each culture has its own set. Even within a given culture there exists different sets. I’d go as far as to say that with the dissolution of Christianity as a cohesive unifying religion within the US values and morality no longer exist as such. Each person’s beliefs change almost daily given how fast information and ideas spread on the internet and social networks. Appeals to morality are essentially dead in my opinion

starfallg 6y ago
>I’d go as far as to say that with the dissolution of Christianity as a cohesive unifying religion within the US values and morality no longer exist as such. Each person’s beliefs change almost daily given how fast information and ideas spread on the internet and social networks. Appeals to morality are essentially dead in my opinion. Yet in other developed countries (like many in Europe) where Christianity is no longer the dominant cultural institution, there is more social cohesiveness. Religion in the US has been weaponised for political ends and became a means of tribal division in society.