[tablespoon]

> 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).

[cwkoss]

Its your analogy. If you think it is misleading, maybe you should have chosen a different one.

Maybe check your internal biases on why you chose one which includes murderous intent.

[tablespoon]

> 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.