[kkarakk]

China has been leveraging their power "quietly" for some time now. Anything anti-China gets buried or discredited or shouted down using whataboutisms. Even here on hackernews you'll see tons of posts on negative chinese news from month old accounts fuzzing the narrative saying some variation of "it's not easy to understand if you're not chinese etc etc"

The hong kong issue is just bringing the issue into the mainstream

[jplayer01]

Not sure why you're being downvoted. I've wasted too much time on HN arguing with people who simply don't believe China isn't as bad as portrayed, and believe everything that comes up here or on other sites is nothing but anti-Chinese propaganda.

There are plenty of people who are so jaded that they're unwilling to condemn China for all the immoral things they do, much less economic or political behaviours that aren't overtly immoral, but do have clear negative impact on the Western sphere of influence and economic status.

As bad as the US is, I don't want a country run by such an authoritarian, ruthless government like the CCP to take over the position as the world's superpower.

[boomboomsubban]

>but do have clear negative impact on the Western sphere of influence and economic status.

And this is such a problem that you think the US should take actions to try and overthrow their government? Even considering how terribly most US regime changes damage a country, and the horrible civil wars that have accompanied the previous Chinese collapses?

>As bad as the US is, I don't want a country run by such an authoritarian, ruthless government like the CCP to take over the position as the world's superpower

I'm not thrilled at the prospect of a Chinese super power either. However, I also view the US as a rather terrible superpower, and unlike in China I have some amount of agency to change that.

[jplayer01]

> And this is such a problem that you think the US should take actions to try and overthrow their government?

I didn't say that. Judging by the successes of forced regime changes in recent history, I'd say there's little actual practical value in doing so. I'm a pragmatist as much as I am an idealist. There are other options to counterbalance China's growing influence and power. The TPP was the most obvious option, but the US scuttled it and abandoned all the Asian countries who were relying on them to protect them from encroaching Chinese pressure.

> I'm not thrilled at the prospect of a Chinese super power either. However, I also view the US as a rather terrible superpower, and unlike in China I have some amount of agency to change that.

Believe me. I'd like nothing more than for the US to gain even a tiny fraction of the moral values and character that they traditionally pretended to have. Still, I prefer a world order where the US is in charge. As abhorrent as they may be, they're the lesser evil here. Unfortunately, Trump and the Republican party are eroding what little faith (and it's miniscule at this point) I have in the US ... if there were any other, better option, I'd be really fucking happy.

[yters]

You don't think there is any moral difference between the two?

[luckylion]

For many people worldwide, the difference is that China is not bombing them, isn't overthrowing their governments and creating & fueling a civil war in their country.

I'm quite certain that China will do those things if they ever become the world's single global super power, but so far they haven't. Not because they wouldn't for moral reasons, but for lack of opportunity. Still, in practice, the worst China is doing to other countries somewhere across the world is blocking some website or creating tariffs, not level a city.

[yters]

Is that true? Seems they are doing a lot in Africa. And even if it were, it's hard to believe they'll treat foreigners any better than their own people.

[luckylion]

They are buying Africa via development aid, that's quite different from bombing Africa. The Chinese will certainly leverage their power, but they tend to do it in more subtle ways, at least where their power isn't overwhelming. Their posturing in the South China Sea certainly looks different from their behavior in Africa or South America. But as I mentioned, I don't believe that it's because they care about human rights, the sovereignty of countries etc, it's that they can't get away with openly bombing random countries on the other side of the globe yet. The US -for the most part- can, so they don't care for subtlety and just do.

[boomboomsubban]

No matter what difference you see between them now, trying to topple their government would make the US far more immoral.

[yters]

Sure it depends on what manner, but what is wrong with a regime change? I am sure there are plenty of Falun Gong, Muslims and Christians who would not mind a freer government. I think only US business would mind because they would not have such easy access to cheap labor and electrical and human parts.

[boomboomsubban]

>Sure it depends on what manner, but what is wrong with a regime change?

The incredibly bloody events that are likely to happen enacting a regime change that wouldn't ensure a freer government.

[TeMPOraL]

> Anything anti-China gets buried or discredited or shouted down using whataboutisms.

Interesting. The only time I see whataboutism and China/Russia brought up in the same HN thread is when somebody tries to defend China/Russia by pointing out similar problems in the West, and that person gets shouted down and accused of engaging in "whataboutism".

[Eldt]

Sounds like you're describing the same thing. I've seen many comments defend China and try to turn attention towards actions done by the US.

[yters]

What US actions are equivalent to China? If you were in China could you make the same argument regarding Chinese actions?

[TeMPOraL]

I initially read kkarakk's comment as a reverse of what I wrote, but even if we're talking the same, I personally believe that any and all accusations of whataboutism are just thought-terminating cliches and are invalid from the start.

[esailija]

It's not to defend China/Russia but to prove that the accuser is not interested in the problem itself but only in weaponizing the problem against those countries. Defense is not necessary or actually even possible since the claims are always made without any evidence.

[ViViDboarder]

Exactly. Someone responding to something shitty one person does by pointing out something someone else did is attempting to “shout down” the original comment with whataboutisms.