111–120 of 144 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bizarre that you have not been downvoted to oblivion. Probably because you didn't use a keyword that summons bots.
You can only downvote on HN after you've acquired enough karma yourself. Bots can't do sh* here, thank you very much.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's really not the business of the US government to be sanctioning China over "better rights for their citizens", when the US has already got massive prison labour camps, racist policing system, and has mishandled the Cvid-19 pandemic to the point where there's a million dead and more injured long-term from long Covid. China is not a perfect system, and the response to terrrorism in Xinjiang should probably not be e…
I don't understand your mindset, possibly you could expand a bit for me. Shouldn't the US try to improve China? Worst case scenario the US is hypocritical, but that doesn't mean it still shouldn't wield its power for good. Doesn't your position "make the perfect the enemy of the good"? I'm interested in hearing your response.
US has been doing that since 1978. US capital and domestic market improved China's economy tremendously. And in the process US capitalists get astronomical amount of profit.
Should US interfere China's political system?
Sure. But since China is so powerful in its military. I see no reason that US can force that upon China.
Cool Sinophobia ITT
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand your mindset, possibly you could expand a bit for me. Shouldn't the US try to improve China? Worst case scenario the US is hypocritical, but that doesn't mean it still shouldn't wield its power for good. Doesn't your position "make the perfect the enemy of the good"? I'm interested in hearing your response.
But why China specifically? Why not wield this power to improve Saudi Arabia for example? (note that since the Saudis are allied and deeply rely on the US, it should be easier to sway them into doing good)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We call ourselves “Developed”. It’s already implicitly throwing in the towel - there is nothing more to be done. We’ve already developed. This entire thinking and it’s psyche in our society feels like straight up propaganda. It used to be first-world and third-world. Chinese labor force isn’t going to help defend Taiwan by making tank gadgets for them. Investing in Chinese labor has so many issues. If we didn’t have…
> We call ourselves “Developed”. It’s already implicitly throwing in the towel - there is nothing more to be done. We’ve already developed. I don't agree with this take. The terms "developed" and "developing" is just a politically correct term to classify countries based on their industrial base. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developing_country It's use has less to do with developed countries and everything to do wit…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand your mindset, possibly you could expand a bit for me. Shouldn't the US try to improve China? Worst case scenario the US is hypocritical, but that doesn't mean it still shouldn't wield its power for good. Doesn't your position "make the perfect the enemy of the good"? I'm interested in hearing your response.
Unless the US improves itself first, then I don't think China is going to believe that the US is making these criticisms and imposing these sanctions with any kind of coherent moral framework. They're going to look at this as a way to restrict and punish them.
I don't quite think the idea that the country needs a "coherent moral framework" to justify taking action to improve particular moral issues. China itself has a coherent framework, but it's wrong and promotes grave injustice (coherence does not mean correct).
Maybe to better understand each other you could comment on my criticism of making "the perfect the enemy of the good" since I think that's the defining issue that's causing me to struggle understanding your point of view.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's really not the business of the US government to be sanctioning China over "better rights for their citizens", when the US has already got massive prison labour camps, racist policing system, and has mishandled the Cvid-19 pandemic to the point where there's a million dead and more injured long-term from long Covid. China is not a perfect system, and the response to terrrorism in Xinjiang should probably not be e…
I don't understand your mindset, possibly you could expand a bit for me. Shouldn't the US try to improve China? Worst case scenario the US is hypocritical, but that doesn't mean it still shouldn't wield its power for good. Doesn't your position "make the perfect the enemy of the good"? I'm interested in hearing your response.
The goal of US foreign policy has never been to improve the lives of people anywhere outside the US. A sibling comment points out that one of our closest allies in the Middle East is Saudi Arabia, an absolute monarchy that publicly beheads dissidents and has incredibly sexist laws, yet the US does nothing, and we see nothing like the neo Cold War coverage that Xinjiang produces. The US will remain an ally of Saudi Arabia because that is beneficial to the interests of the US, not the people subject to the Saudi regime.
If you think I’m a cynic or conspiracy theorist, take a look at what the US has done in other countries since WW2, in many cases overthrowing democratically elected governments in favor of US friendly regimes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r.... This is what the US has always done to other countries, expecting them to care about morals or improving anyone’s lives is missing their goal completely (and taking their propaganda at face value).
Whatever the goal of confrontation with China is, improving human rights is the least likely possibility.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand your mindset, possibly you could expand a bit for me. Shouldn't the US try to improve China? Worst case scenario the US is hypocritical, but that doesn't mean it still shouldn't wield its power for good. Doesn't your position "make the perfect the enemy of the good"? I'm interested in hearing your response.
> Shouldn't the US try to improve China? US has been doing that since 1978. US capital and domestic market improved China's economy tremendously. And in the process US capitalists get astronomical amount of profit. Should US interfere China's political system? Sure. But since China is so powerful in its military. I see no reason that US can force that upon China.
I wonder if the onset of globalization and offshoring US factories to China on top of Citizens United will be remembered as the US's "Fall of Rome" moment. The US essentially allowed the government to be bought and paid for by foreign entities and is relying on said countries for most manufactured goods. So now the other country can essentially say "Our laws are your laws otherwise we're not going manufacture your go…
I'd say a good historical analogues (personal opinion ofc) would be the fall the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The political system was heavily fragmented and easily bought, and essentially foreign countries cheaply bought influence specifically to undermine the country. Selfishness doomed attempts at reform, and doomed the country as a whole.
Also as a Jewish person, a scary analog…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's too narrow to talk about it as simply "globalization". Globalization has done some really great things, like lifting millions of people out of poverty. But the US has also failed to keep itself competitive with China, and China has (unfairly, IMO, but I'm of course biased) taken advantage of the US's IP and talent (among other things) in order to increase their global influence and gain leverage over the…
Did China ever agree to respect “intellectual property”? I ask honestly, it isn’t an obvious concept that you Would expect to exist in all cultures.
Effectively the us threw open the gates on the hypothesis that it would be a Cold War win and that China would eventually liberalize. This problem was well understood by the 90s but the war on terror ultimately blocked any US policy shifts.