4 ms·

Sure many did - that doesn’t make it right. Furthermore, this take is the “neutral global citizen” way of looking at things. It’s one perspective, and certainl

by tjs8rj 4y ago

Sure many did - that doesn’t make it right. Furthermore, this take is the “neutral global citizen” way of looking at things. It’s one perspective, and certainly important to be aware of, but China vs US (or the west more generally) isn’t a neutral outcome. The Chinese system would be a massive detriment to human rights if allowed to continue growing, as it’s a massive detriment to human rights now. “Retweeting” pro-western perspectives is the right thing to do in that case, even if it isn’t the most “neutral” perspective. For some reason there’s a fear of being pro-western nowadays and so many like to take this “enlightened observer” approach, but that’s a luxury existing in the west affords, and keeping it requires defending it.

stelonix 4y ago
That's the most moral thing to do as long as you're a privileged west citizen. If you're from the third world and specially if the US meddled in your life, the "neutral global citizen" pov is the default. We could list how the US does not respect human rights at all even within its borders, let alone in foreign countries; we could also list all military and political intervention by the west in other countries. With those lists, the only moral thing to do is to "retweet" the anti-western perspectives. The US system has proven time and time again it not only fails to deliver its promises, it breaks economies and has a net negative benefit, so why should we be spreading them?
- tjs8rj 4y ago
  Every atrocity the US has committed has been committed by any comparable (like China), but Chinese vs US tyranny looks very different (especially today). If that’s how you feel, then don’t spread it, but when the stakes are as high as the future of billions of lives, neutrality or forwarding the most despotic perspective makes you in part culpable for what they do.
  - bllguo 4y ago
    only an American could say this with a straight face. the horrors the US inflicted on other countries in the last several decades is so many times greater than anything China has ever done. most importantly, stop projecting American imperialist attitudes onto China. there is zero indication of China trying to spread the systems you are so afraid of. funny how the "neutral global citizen" is interested in preserving a system that just happens to benefit the west at the expense of the global south.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - throwaway236987 4y ago
      > there is zero indication of China trying to spread the systems you are so afraid of Zero? Not convincing. China expanding the territory of its recent political and social systems looks clear to people watching from outside China. Examples: Tibet, Hong Kong recently, and Taiwan is officially a someday target. Nearby countries understandably worry they are on the someday list as well, more since South China Sea activities and the artificial islands being constructed. China calls these system expansions "internal" because everywhere the systems expand to is deemed "really" China already. But most people who live there didn't (or don't) want it, and have lost (or would lose) access to ways of life, human rights and freedoms that they previously had and cherished that are under discussion in this thread. (It's a bit like Russia's view that Ukraine is "really" part of Russia so the invasion is not an invasion, and the annexation of Crimea was not an annexation. Whatever you think of history, one way or another those actions obviously spread the current Russian system to more territory and people, most of whom don't want it. The parallels to China and Taiwan (and previously China and Tibet) are strong enough that many words have been written saying that's why China chose not to condemn Russia in either case.)
      - DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
        Tibet, Hong Kong and Taiwan are all historically part of China. Legally speaking, China is on very strong footing in claiming all three territories. No one even disputes Chinese sovereignty over Tibet and Hong Kong, as far as I'm aware. Everyone recognizes that Taiwan has legally been part of China since 1945 (it became part of China in the 1680s, but Japan took it as a prize of war in 1895 and had to give it back at the end of WWII). The complication there is that China had a civil war, the former government of China retreated to Taiwan, and the territory has grown apart over the decades. But it's not as if China is just randomly making up territories to claim. It's claiming very specific territories that it has a strong legal claim to.
        4y ago
  - stelonix 4y ago
    Likewise, for those of on this side of the fence, the stakes are the future of billions of lives, the west is the despotic one and we can prove they're not after our best interest by showing the degree of political & military meddling we've suffered and still are suffering right now. I'd rather you guys show some proof of the Chinese boogeyman if you want us to change our views. Otherwise, trying to silence us simply won't work. Oh and about your initial comment wondering why it's not cool to be "pro-west" anymore, the reason is in a globalized world, more and more people are knowing other countries and interacting with its citizens instead of learning everything about their geopolitical foes from western state-funded channels.
  - ok_dad 4y ago
    Yea at least the USA shit sandwich has bread!
hyperman1 4y ago
A few remarks here. 1) They did it. That's all that matters. We'll have to deal with that as a fact. Trying to use moral labels will not help anybody. 2) A top country screams theft. Meanwhile all the other country's including but not limited to China know that top country stole just as much when it wasn't at the top of the ladder. They can and will rightfully call the top country out not applying equal measures. Retweeting only half of the truth is hypocritical, they know it, and they'll use it to gain political advantage against the 1st world. It does not make us 'enlightened observers' simply for pointing this out. 3) While China is far from a beacon of human rights, this kind of tech transfer used to be the kickoff for more human rights in the countries where it happened. After Lieven Bouwens in Flanders etc there was massive worker abuse up to killing children in factories. Everybody knew things where blatantly unfair. The workers organized and demanded rights (The whole story about priest Daens in our history). I understand the US had its own Robber Barons, and a lot of western countrys have similar stories. Why would China be different?
- djohnston 4y ago
  The idea that China would become more liberal with trade and technology was the Nixon doctrine that set us on our current path. It failed. China has improved life for it's people dramatically but now it's an adversary to the West, not some beacon of human rights in the East.
VK538FY 4y ago
I'd encourage you to study the difference between (a) the Chinese political system and (b) the Chinese model for international co-operation. The first is hard for me to accept, as a Westerner attached to direct democracy, but I recognize its accomplishments and try to look through the fog of propaganda. The second is a an alternative to the Western, 'rules-based', neo-liberal and neo-colonial order. You're likely to see a large part of the world supportive of this alternative. It also leaves plenty of space for human rights and democracy in partner countries, since national sovereignty and multipolarity are amongst its guiding principals.
- dontlaugh 4y ago
  It's possible the first may not be so objectionable to you, but the image you have of it is (as you say) through the fog of Western propaganda. Here's what the PRC says about its democratic processes http://www.news.cn/english/2021-12/04/c_1310351231.htm http://www.news.cn/english/2021-12/04/c_1310351231.htm Having spoken to a bunch of Chinese people, they confirm many of these aspects. If anything it's a more direct form of democracy, where you elect local representatives that you have the opportunity to know personally, which then can get delegated to higher (up to national) bodies.
  - VK538FY 4y ago
    I will read the white paper to which you link because it looks interesting and it's important to obtain information from the source. (Can't digest it before I respond to you here.) I have read about the positive aspects of the Chinese system of representation and the iterative improvements that it's intended to introduce. Definitely some things to learn from that approach. Still, I can't go so far as to call it direct democracy and it's not just semantics or my reference to the Swiss system. Here is my reasoning. The Chinese government (central, provincial or local) is known for some heavy handed tactics that just wouldn't pass in a direct democracy where the people is sovereign. Example: China's anti-coronavirus measures. (I am not arguing for or against but the case illustrates the mechanism.) I see no evidence that a large majority of Chinese citizens support those measures. In Switzerland, it was clear that the majority supporting measures was razor thin and this led to significant compromises. Primarily because there would have been more and more democratic initiatives seeking to limit government action and some would be successful. Neighbouring countries with less direct democracy do not feel this pressure and do not move so quickly.
HVEx0Wpy6luARum 4y ago
> The Chinese system would be a massive detriment to human rights if allowed to continue growing, as it’s a massive detriment to human rights now How do you figure? It's funny, the vast majority of the complaints I see about China and human rights are things that the US is even worse about...
- senttoschool 4y ago
  He can't figure. Chinese culture emphasizes harmony. The don't want war/conflict generally. Even when China was the most powerful country on Earth, they did not try to colonize and expand like the Europeans did. But to an American, a powerful country means it will probably invade and start wars. This is the American way.
thegayretard69 4y ago
dontlaugh 4y ago
How many countries did China coup, bomb or invade? We're all painfully aware of how many countries the US did that to, since most of were born in one.

by tjs8rj 4y ago

stelonix 4y ago

That's the most moral thing to do as long as you're a privileged west citizen. If you're from the third world and specially if the US meddled in your life, the "neutral global citizen" pov is the default. We could list how the US does not respect human rights at all even within its borders, let alone in foreign countries; we could also list all military and political intervention by the west in other countries. With those lists, the only moral thing to do is to "retweet" the anti-western perspectives. The US system has proven time and time again it not only fails to deliver its promises, it breaks economies and has a net negative benefit, so why should we be spreading them?

tjs8rj 4y ago
Every atrocity the US has committed has been committed by any comparable (like China), but Chinese vs US tyranny looks very different (especially today). If that’s how you feel, then don’t spread it, but when the stakes are as high as the future of billions of lives, neutrality or forwarding the most despotic perspective makes you in part culpable for what they do.
- bllguo 4y ago
  only an American could say this with a straight face. the horrors the US inflicted on other countries in the last several decades is so many times greater than anything China has ever done. most importantly, stop projecting American imperialist attitudes onto China. there is zero indication of China trying to spread the systems you are so afraid of. funny how the "neutral global citizen" is interested in preserving a system that just happens to benefit the west at the expense of the global south.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - throwaway236987 4y ago
    > there is zero indication of China trying to spread the systems you are so afraid of Zero? Not convincing. China expanding the territory of its recent political and social systems looks clear to people watching from outside China. Examples: Tibet, Hong Kong recently, and Taiwan is officially a someday target. Nearby countries understandably worry they are on the someday list as well, more since South China Sea activities and the artificial islands being constructed. China calls these system expansions "internal" because everywhere the systems expand to is deemed "really" China already. But most people who live there didn't (or don't) want it, and have lost (or would lose) access to ways of life, human rights and freedoms that they previously had and cherished that are under discussion in this thread. (It's a bit like Russia's view that Ukraine is "really" part of Russia so the invasion is not an invasion, and the annexation of Crimea was not an annexation. Whatever you think of history, one way or another those actions obviously spread the current Russian system to more territory and people, most of whom don't want it. The parallels to China and Taiwan (and previously China and Tibet) are strong enough that many words have been written saying that's why China chose not to condemn Russia in either case.)
    - DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
      Tibet, Hong Kong and Taiwan are all historically part of China. Legally speaking, China is on very strong footing in claiming all three territories. No one even disputes Chinese sovereignty over Tibet and Hong Kong, as far as I'm aware. Everyone recognizes that Taiwan has legally been part of China since 1945 (it became part of China in the 1680s, but Japan took it as a prize of war in 1895 and had to give it back at the end of WWII). The complication there is that China had a civil war, the former government of China retreated to Taiwan, and the territory has grown apart over the decades. But it's not as if China is just randomly making up territories to claim. It's claiming very specific territories that it has a strong legal claim to.
      - 4y ago
- stelonix 4y ago
  Likewise, for those of on this side of the fence, the stakes are the future of billions of lives, the west is the despotic one and we can prove they're not after our best interest by showing the degree of political & military meddling we've suffered and still are suffering right now. I'd rather you guys show some proof of the Chinese boogeyman if you want us to change our views. Otherwise, trying to silence us simply won't work. Oh and about your initial comment wondering why it's not cool to be "pro-west" anymore, the reason is in a globalized world, more and more people are knowing other countries and interacting with its citizens instead of learning everything about their geopolitical foes from western state-funded channels.
- ok_dad 4y ago
  Yea at least the USA shit sandwich has bread!

hyperman1 4y ago

A few remarks here. 1) They did it. That's all that matters. We'll have to deal with that as a fact. Trying to use moral labels will not help anybody. 2) A top country screams theft. Meanwhile all the other country's including but not limited to China know that top country stole just as much when it wasn't at the top of the ladder. They can and will rightfully call the top country out not applying equal measures. Retweeting only half of the truth is hypocritical, they know it, and they'll use it to gain political advantage against the 1st world. It does not make us 'enlightened observers' simply for pointing this out. 3) While China is far from a beacon of human rights, this kind of tech transfer used to be the kickoff for more human rights in the countries where it happened. After Lieven Bouwens in Flanders etc there was massive worker abuse up to killing children in factories. Everybody knew things where blatantly unfair. The workers organized and demanded rights (The whole story about priest Daens in our history). I understand the US had its own Robber Barons, and a lot of western countrys have similar stories. Why would China be different?

djohnston 4y ago
The idea that China would become more liberal with trade and technology was the Nixon doctrine that set us on our current path. It failed. China has improved life for it's people dramatically but now it's an adversary to the West, not some beacon of human rights in the East.

VK538FY 4y ago

I'd encourage you to study the difference between (a) the Chinese political system and (b) the Chinese model for international co-operation. The first is hard for me to accept, as a Westerner attached to direct democracy, but I recognize its accomplishments and try to look through the fog of propaganda. The second is a an alternative to the Western, 'rules-based', neo-liberal and neo-colonial order. You're likely to see a large part of the world supportive of this alternative. It also leaves plenty of space for human rights and democracy in partner countries, since national sovereignty and multipolarity are amongst its guiding principals.

dontlaugh 4y ago
It's possible the first may not be so objectionable to you, but the image you have of it is (as you say) through the fog of Western propaganda. Here's what the PRC says about its democratic processes http://www.news.cn/english/2021-12/04/c_1310351231.htm http://www.news.cn/english/2021-12/04/c_1310351231.htm Having spoken to a bunch of Chinese people, they confirm many of these aspects. If anything it's a more direct form of democracy, where you elect local representatives that you have the opportunity to know personally, which then can get delegated to higher (up to national) bodies.
- VK538FY 4y ago
  I will read the white paper to which you link because it looks interesting and it's important to obtain information from the source. (Can't digest it before I respond to you here.) I have read about the positive aspects of the Chinese system of representation and the iterative improvements that it's intended to introduce. Definitely some things to learn from that approach. Still, I can't go so far as to call it direct democracy and it's not just semantics or my reference to the Swiss system. Here is my reasoning. The Chinese government (central, provincial or local) is known for some heavy handed tactics that just wouldn't pass in a direct democracy where the people is sovereign. Example: China's anti-coronavirus measures. (I am not arguing for or against but the case illustrates the mechanism.) I see no evidence that a large majority of Chinese citizens support those measures. In Switzerland, it was clear that the majority supporting measures was razor thin and this led to significant compromises. Primarily because there would have been more and more democratic initiatives seeking to limit government action and some would be successful. Neighbouring countries with less direct democracy do not feel this pressure and do not move so quickly.

HVEx0Wpy6luARum 4y ago

> The Chinese system would be a massive detriment to human rights if allowed to continue growing, as it’s a massive detriment to human rights now How do you figure? It's funny, the vast majority of the complaints I see about China and human rights are things that the US is even worse about...

senttoschool 4y ago
He can't figure. Chinese culture emphasizes harmony. The don't want war/conflict generally. Even when China was the most powerful country on Earth, they did not try to colonize and expand like the Europeans did. But to an American, a powerful country means it will probably invade and start wars. This is the American way.

thegayretard69 4y ago

dontlaugh 4y ago

How many countries did China coup, bomb or invade? We're all painfully aware of how many countries the US did that to, since most of were born in one.