> China is a national competitor, not an enemy who intends to kill us. Sinophobic propaganda has been unfortunately effective on too many people.
You missed the point. Analogies aren't a one-to-one mapping between every aspect one situation and another, and you're going to have trouble if you interpret them that way. In this case, you picked on a feature that doesn't map to the situation under discussion to make an inflammatory suggestion.
To spell it out, very, very clearly: the analogy only demonstrates that "who holds the thing" is important for assessing a threat from a particular perspective. The US holds "[Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, Snapchat, Twitter]" (which are all banned in China) and China holds TikTok (which is not banned in the US).
> Its your analogy. If you think it is misleading, maybe you should have chosen a different one.
It's not misleading, you just read too much into it. It's like quibbling with an analogy about "Alice and Bob" because your name isn't Alice or Bob.
> Maybe check your internal biases on why you chose one which includes murderous intent.
If someone is making an analogy about threats in general, it's silly to expect them to find a different a threat that's different but also exactly the same as the one being discussed. Analogies are used to highlight a particular aspect, and usually that means picking something that is different but very clearly highlights that particular aspect.
Again, to spell it out, very, very clearly: a gun is an easily understood threat that almost everyone understands can be held by different people. It is a good object for illustrating how a threat changes based on who "holds" it.
They want to be THE de-facto global hegemon. They've stated this time and time again. It's literally in their name (Middle Country).
They don't want to kill us per-say, but they don't mind getting their hands dirty as long as the ends justify the means. In a battle over geopolitical, technological and militaristic superiority, killing one's enemy can happen.
China is preparing to invade Taiwan in the coming decade and the US is committing to defend the 23 million people there from invasion. What part of that is propaganda?
> China is preparing to invade Taiwan in the coming decade
Propaganda. You can tell because China has never said that it intends to invade Taiwan, and you have no inside information. Propaganda is what makes you think you have inside information.
> the US is committing to defend the 23 million people there from invasion.
That's not propaganda. As far as I can tell, it's as much a declaration of war as if Xi said, on video, that the would commit the Chinese military to defend Florida if there were any US effort to prevent DeSantis sending immigrants out of Florida on buses.
China is not a submissive or weak country. I would honestly be surprised if they didn't start preparing to invade Taiwan (or as they would say, to send troops to Taiwan) ASAP after that interview.
edit: We can have WWIII, but it will be the US, BJP, and various poor authoritarian Eastern European states vs. everyone else. It'll be like WWII, except we can be the Axis this time. Hitler was as surprised as anyone that we weren't in the Axis last time.
Here's you complaining about "horrifying virulence of Ukrainian nationalism", before the further invasion, definitely nothing about the soon to be start of Russian killing of Ukrainians.
>> China is preparing to invade Taiwan in the coming decade...What part of that is propaganda?
> Propaganda. You can tell because China has never said that it intends to invade Taiwan, and you have no inside information.
Uh dude, they repeatedly make it clear the option to invade is on the table, and they've even withdrawn a previous promise not to send military occupation forces. And if you haven't been paying attention: a little more than a month ago they conducted live-fire exercises that looked a lot like practicing for a blockade of Taiwan.
That's all out in the open. "Inside information" is not necessary.
You missed the point. Analogies aren't a one-to-one mapping between every aspect one situation and another, and you're going to have trouble if you interpret them that way. In this case, you picked on a feature that doesn't map to the situation under discussion to make an inflammatory suggestion.
To spell it out, very, very clearly: the analogy only demonstrates that "who holds the thing" is important for assessing a threat from a particular perspective. The US holds "[Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, Snapchat, Twitter]" (which are all banned in China) and China holds TikTok (which is not banned in the US).