3 ms·

The problem is: it’s China. No matter your argument, it’s very easy to respond with “but China.” Simply put: “the US doesn’t commit genocide, therefore, we’re b

The problem is: it’s China. No matter your argument, it’s very easy to respond with “but China.” Simply put: “the US doesn’t commit genocide, therefore, we’re better.” It’s a ridiculous argument IMHO, but it’s one that I’ve heard (even here) many times.

willis936 6y ago
How is it ridiculous? Is taking action against a country actively committing genocide ridiculous?
- colejohnson66 6y ago
  It’s not. But saying we’re better than China when we do many bad things comes off as virtue signaling. Just because we don’t do what they do doesn’t mean we’re better if we do things that are similar or even worse than they do. Abducting protestors off the street in unmarked vans is very reminiscent of what’s happening in Hong Kong. Many people actively support the riots in Hong Kong, but demonize them when they happen here. The NSA spies on everyone, but we care more about when China does it. We have roughly a Social Credit system in the form of your Credit Report and algorithms that determine if you’ll jump bail.[0] Heck, we have a President who has suggested he won’t leave office if he loses in November and a very large chunk of the population supports it (I’ve seen some die-hard Republicans say he should run for a third term in 2024 if he wins 2020). The list goes on and on. Basically, we may be better than China in some ways, but to say we’re overall better is debatable. I would even go as far as saying it’s disingenuous. We can’t be better if we don’t recognize our own shortcomings. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24425797 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24425797
  - willis936 6y ago
    You dismiss my pointing out of genocide with whataboutism[0]. Nothing the US does comes close to ethnic cleansing on the “bad guy” scale. 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
orbifold 6y ago
Propping up China vis a vis the Soviet Union and Japan was a smart move. The State Department should have dropped them like a hot potato after the Japanese economy stalled in the 80s and the Soviet Union collapsed.
arcticbull 6y ago
Not committing genocide is a good way to be better than a country committing genocide, jmho.
- olsonjeffery 6y ago
  The US doesn't need to commit genocide because it grooms foreign military officers and paramilitaries to do it for them.
eternalban 6y ago
quote: Saturday marks the 20th anniversary of arguably the worst congressional vote in this century. On that day in 2000, the Senate approved Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) with the People’s Republic of China by a vote of 83-15. President Bill Clinton signed the legislation into law, declaring: “China will open its markets to American products from wheat to cars to consulting services, and our companies will be far more able to sell goods without moving factories or investments there.” Republican Rep. Bill Archer of Texas, the lead sponsor of the bill, remarked, “The American people support this agreement because they know it’s good for jobs in America and good for human rights and the development of democracy in China.” quote.end https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/sep/11/normalizing-trade-with-china-back-in-2000-was-a-co/ https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/sep/11/normalizing... Call me cycnical but review above quotes, multiply by N over 3 decades, and we have a general sense of the type of smoke blown in our face by the representatives of Big Money and Big Business (and possibly some Globalist ideologues) that were elected by "us" to represent "us". Two possibilities, based on a working memory of what was said and when, regarding China and more broadly "free trade" and Globalism, here and abroad: option 1: "The West" (which c.f. above regarding "our" representatives) assumed that Chinese greed will exceed Chinese ideological zeal/control, and CCP would ultimately lose its grip over the Chinese nation. option 2: No such thoughts "clouded" "our" decision makers' decisions. The idea was always and in essence contrary to option 1 - how to evolve from sole Superpower order to a global elite order. China was deemed as large enough, significant enough, and strategic enough to be used as the instrument to evolve post WWII order to a global governance model, as the platform to dethrone USA from its superpower perch. Recently, it appears a sub-set of the US capitalist class has rediscovered a love of homeland or something like that, while another sub-set (with the better sort of propanda organs) is vehemently opposing them. I think the former didn't get the original memo. Sucks not to be in the uber-in circle.

willis936 6y ago

How is it ridiculous? Is taking action against a country actively committing genocide ridiculous?

colejohnson66 6y ago
It’s not. But saying we’re better than China when we do many bad things comes off as virtue signaling. Just because we don’t do what they do doesn’t mean we’re better if we do things that are similar or even worse than they do. Abducting protestors off the street in unmarked vans is very reminiscent of what’s happening in Hong Kong. Many people actively support the riots in Hong Kong, but demonize them when they happen here. The NSA spies on everyone, but we care more about when China does it. We have roughly a Social Credit system in the form of your Credit Report and algorithms that determine if you’ll jump bail.[0] Heck, we have a President who has suggested he won’t leave office if he loses in November and a very large chunk of the population supports it (I’ve seen some die-hard Republicans say he should run for a third term in 2024 if he wins 2020). The list goes on and on. Basically, we may be better than China in some ways, but to say we’re overall better is debatable. I would even go as far as saying it’s disingenuous. We can’t be better if we don’t recognize our own shortcomings. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24425797 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24425797
- willis936 6y ago
  You dismiss my pointing out of genocide with whataboutism[0]. Nothing the US does comes close to ethnic cleansing on the “bad guy” scale. 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

orbifold 6y ago

Propping up China vis a vis the Soviet Union and Japan was a smart move. The State Department should have dropped them like a hot potato after the Japanese economy stalled in the 80s and the Soviet Union collapsed.

arcticbull 6y ago

Not committing genocide is a good way to be better than a country committing genocide, jmho.

olsonjeffery 6y ago
The US doesn't need to commit genocide because it grooms foreign military officers and paramilitaries to do it for them.

eternalban 6y ago

quote: Saturday marks the 20th anniversary of arguably the worst congressional vote in this century. On that day in 2000, the Senate approved Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) with the People’s Republic of China by a vote of 83-15. President Bill Clinton signed the legislation into law, declaring: “China will open its markets to American products from wheat to cars to consulting services, and our companies will be far more able to sell goods without moving factories or investments there.” Republican Rep. Bill Archer of Texas, the lead sponsor of the bill, remarked, “The American people support this agreement because they know it’s good for jobs in America and good for human rights and the development of democracy in China.” quote.end https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/sep/11/normalizing-trade-with-china-back-in-2000-was-a-co/ https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/sep/11/normalizing... Call me cycnical but review above quotes, multiply by N over 3 decades, and we have a general sense of the type of smoke blown in our face by the representatives of Big Money and Big Business (and possibly some Globalist ideologues) that were elected by "us" to represent "us". Two possibilities, based on a working memory of what was said and when, regarding China and more broadly "free trade" and Globalism, here and abroad: option 1: "The West" (which c.f. above regarding "our" representatives) assumed that Chinese greed will exceed Chinese ideological zeal/control, and CCP would ultimately lose its grip over the Chinese nation. option 2: No such thoughts "clouded" "our" decision makers' decisions. The idea was always and in essence contrary to option 1 - how to evolve from sole Superpower order to a global elite order. China was deemed as large enough, significant enough, and strategic enough to be used as the instrument to evolve post WWII order to a global governance model, as the platform to dethrone USA from its superpower perch. Recently, it appears a sub-set of the US capitalist class has rediscovered a love of homeland or something like that, while another sub-set (with the better sort of propanda organs) is vehemently opposing them. I think the former didn't get the original memo. Sucks not to be in the uber-in circle.