Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by yters 2453 days ago
You don't think there is any moral difference between the two?
2 comments

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.

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.
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.
Who is bombing Africa? It seems a lot of moral outrage against the US stems from false equivalence.
The US has been routinely bombing both Libya and Somalia for around a decade.
Yes but for what reason? Just for fun? To take them over? To combat terrorism?
No matter what difference you see between them now, trying to topple their government would make the US far more immoral.
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.
>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.

Yes I agree. Revolution is not the way. That's how China for into the current mess. But I see no problem with assisting with regime change from within.
So you want to replace Xi with some other member of the Politburo? Pulling that off seems unlikely to help much, and failure would strengthen his position.

I don't know any other internal regime change that isn't a revolution.

I think the biggest is from the rest of the world. We are complicit because we happily buy goods from such a horrible regime. We need an international boycott on China until they shape up.

Ideological. Communism and human rights violation are seen as acceptable due to a specific worldview. Demonstrating the error with the worldview can change people's minds and lead to internal regime change.