[thewholeview]

While I've always respected the West's stance on their own judgment of values, and the continual holding of it, I'm saddened by any narrative that it's in the face of morality.

Morality is an entirely subjective concept, and should not be used as a weaponry. The West has developed for many years and have ascended through times from ancient religious principles to the notion of modern basic human rights. However, I'd like to address that by saying the notion of "basic human rights" isn't universal, it's a standard of the West. The East doesn't do it perfect, but neither does the West. This whole affair is an eventual reality that happened to spark in the era of our existence, due to an inherent ideological difference. This is no right or wrong here, only a side to take, but to attack the opposite side of being immoral based on one's own judgmental system is simply not constructive.

As humans, the least we can do is to be aware of the situations and stay open minded and be respectful of each other, and our differences. That's how we can together evolve to a possibly harmonious future, at least to the extent of the upper-bound of humanity. There isn't a single standard of morality, and a heavy indulgence on one single side will eventually run yourself into a corner of being seen as practicing double standard.

Let's call it for what it is, a challenger to the current supremacy and that's that. Conflicts arising due to ideological differences is hard to resolve, but to only address the other party as immoral is an extremely short-sighted strategy to addressing any differences between the two. It's a greatly sad affair to see the propaganda machine on both ends flexing their muscle. Either the challenger will be defeated and we accept a new reality, or the existing supremacy loses and accept itself as a second. Bringing in a self-righteous morality to the mix is only going to incur permanent damage to humanity as a whole by prolonging the battle between ideals.

[chillacy]

It's an important reminder that morality is not agreed upon by different cultures (heck, even within the US people disagree about say the extent of free speech).

I think it's okay for the article to make mention of human rights because it's written for a US audience. Basically the article is saying "China doesn't share western values" which is like saying "Missouri doesn't share Californian values".

And if that's the case, maybe we shouldn't be cutting deals which make us feel bad.

[flukus]

The problem isn't that China has different values, it's that it's trying to apply those values in the west and to spread it's influence. This crosses a hard line that is unacceptable and if cutting off all relations with China is the only solution then so be it.

[thewholeview]

China never tries to spread its influence, China is in a purely defensive position and the West continues to tap into China's business and then leverage whatever reaction received as China's evil deeds.

China doesn't invade the Middle East, China doesn't preach Communism globally. It's a really good question to ask who always really tries to spread their own influence.

[flukus]

Then explain why pro CCP demonstrators are intimidating Honk Kong protesters the world over? Explain why their are so many new accounts astro-turfing for China? Just because they don't have the military might to do it directly doesn't mean they aren't spreading their influence. They're busy buying influence wherever they can and using their citizens and former citizens as soft influence in other places. Of course they aren't preaching communism, they abandoned communism decades ago.

[thewholeview]

You have it backwards. China has the military might but chooses not to, because what the CCP wants is a peaceful resolution within its own region. On the contrary, the West's supposedly moral support of the "peaceful" demonstration is seeing 48/58 subway stations closing due to vandalism, many banks and phone stores getting robbed. These aren't pictures that Western media would portray, but that's the closer to truth reality that's occurring in HK. My friend in HK are evading to Shenzhen for protection, and other friend is attempting to understand the immigration process better to leave the unstable HK. Is this the real meaning of liberating HK? Just because other states, AKA Middle East hasn't gotten enough soft influence to show the world what "liberating" them means (destroyed states that cannot recover in decades), China will not take the soft course and actually stands to protect its own territory.

[flukus]

No, they don't remotely have the military might to invade the middle east, not that this is a bad thing, but to argue they do is just silly, they can't even invade Taiwan like they've wanted to do for 60 years.

As for peaceful, from Tienanmen square to how they deal with the Uyghurs to what is likely to be the case for Hong Kong they are anything but peaceful, even with their own citizens. If they were truly peaceful they wouldn't have to censor their own actions from their own citizens. If they wanted a peaceful solution they'd be happy keeping Hong Kongs current autonomy. Externally, they invaded Tibet, they would invade Taiwan if they could, most of their peacefulness comes from inability and not lack of desire.

[cbnotfromthere]

Your account was created 6 days ago.

[thewholeview]

Yes, I can admit that I've created an alternative account. Because the American political atmosphere is endangering my ability to freely express the alternative that's other than the popular opinion.

I only come to hope to bring certain other perspective in peace and hoping for scholarly discussions on perspectives that I've not personally considered.

But of course it's all in the willingness of yourself to believe that there can actually be legitimate and unsponsored grassroot opinions not in favor of the West's perspective.

[throwawy4trueth]

You are not alone. We are on the same boat. Invisible censorship is more deceptive than visible censorship. I don't blame the system. Freedom of speech? It's not easy although it's a wonderful idea.

[Ill_ban_myself]

Total control of the lives of your citizens is evil. It’s an evil goal. It’s evil if you’re Chinese. It’s evil if you’re European. It’s a goal for insects. Not humans.

I will morally judge total control of citizens with my voice, my wallet, my vote. all my strength as long as I and my children live.

[blueboo]

Precious relativism in defense of idle apathy.

[yadaeno]

If your society has a value system that can easily justify genocide, harvesting organs of political opponents, and imperialism, I am not convinced that your society will sustain long term.

We have seen similar value systems in colonial Europe, Soviet Russia, 1900s Japan. History shows us what this leads to in quantifyable terms.