Comment by don_esteban
1 month ago
Now compare that to what the USA did in the same time frame. Pay special attention to people killed (either directly, or indirectly) outside of their own borders. Who should you be worried about?
1 month ago
Now compare that to what the USA did in the same time frame. Pay special attention to people killed (either directly, or indirectly) outside of their own borders. Who should you be worried about?
Two evils just means there are two evils. We don't have to value one more than the other.
Wrongs don't negate each other.
If you have the choice between AI models created by one evil or the other, it does feel relevant which you consider to be the lesser evil
That’s a pathetic moral band-aid.
All technology can be used for good or used for evil depending on who is using it and how. From fire to internal combustion engines to nuclear energy.
> We don't have to value one more than the other.
Yes we do. We should evaluate threats and choose our allies carefully.
[dead]
Correct, but people are not wrong in being more concerned about the evil biting than the one keeping it chill.
Unfortunately, I have to agree with you. As the saying goes: "better the devil you know". China can at least so far be relied upon to not shoot itself in the foot (and take the whole word with it). The same cannot be said of other great powers like the US (under Trump, for more reasons than I'm willing to list here) and Russia (with Putin's completely harebrained invasion of Ukraine). China can prove me wrong any time by invading Taiwan, but I still hope they don't. Of course, if we try to keep them away from advanced chip technology, that would be further motivation to invade (although TSMC is unlikely to survive an invasion - even if it did survive the actual conflict, it would probably be destroyed or evacuated to avoid it falling into Chinese hands? But I don't want to see the hardware prices after such an event).
15 replies →
You should avoid agreeing with the narcissists that always use false equivalence, whataboutism, and goal post shifting the second you call them out.
You are allowing them to define a ridiculous standard by agreeing with them that not only is it in fact “two evils” but what qualifies as evil. They’ll tell you…always only when called out, mind you…all and any meddling (also something they will then define with the same kind of falls equivalence loop) is evils, when that is simply not true, not is any kind of effort to influence the same thing as actual meddling, not us it always evil.
I could go on, but I’m sure you get the point, the narcissistic personality or their little zombies in most cases will constantly shift and change things all to avoid you from being able to get a clear focus on the truth, something their explosively allergic to.
As an American child of the Empire with global perspective and very high access perspective, there is no other entity besides the cabal that controls the USA and acts flying its banner; that is more deadly, more meddling, more conniving, more evil, more supremacist, and more vile.
Given it's an internet forum, and people here can be anyone around the world, I understand your intent but people over index on the threat that ofc feels closer, rather than the threat that's significantly farther away.
But in general if you ask folks in south east Asia you will find they are likely to be more concerned with China than US except this maddening Oil Crisis.
Although I think people now are very afraid/wary of both evils.
The US govt should think why people in all parts of the world including US itself feel just if not more threatened by them, than China and other evils we have floating around.
I would like to hope my American friends didn't vote for this madness or maybe they did I have read DHH's tweets.
Nobody said they negate each other. The comment being discussed is fearmongering about China and is very relaxed about the USA. All we're saying is you should be either afraid of both or relaxed about both. China is not worse than the US.
[dead]
Sadly, we live in a decidedly imperfect world. I don't think there is a single completely good person on the planet, let alone a country.
It is perfectly fine to say that a person who killed one person is bad but not as bad as the one who killed thousands.
I eagerly await for the USA citizens to downvote this in about 5 hours.
> Who should you be worried about?
For Americans the answer is obvious since they are biased in this.
For everybody else, your question is valid.
Dont pretend americans dont need to be afraid of american government. look at the state of the place. A lot of them arent exactly thrilled with their current environment, job market, education, prisonsystem, gun laws, food industry, healthcare etc. etc.
the question is valid for anyone who cares for more than their own ass
I'm an American, but I do not think the American government being strong helps me or my fellow Americans. The less America can project its cultural and military power on the rest of the world, the better.
There are different kinds of strengths. There was a past American government that was strong enough to stamp out inequality and fight for civil rights. To overturn oppression and give everyone an equal opportunity to succeed. That's a strong American government I could get behind.
6 replies →
Considering who has been their president for 2 terms, and most likely a third one, I really wonder.
All my life I heard American boasting their constitutions but now it's as worthy of my toilet papers.
Turns out the whole system is quite fragile when faced with people who have no interest in anyone besides themselves
The American government has caused the death of a lot more Americans than China has.
Cultural revolution?
1 reply →
[flagged]
8 replies →
[flagged]
Please reconsider this comment. Calling one side superior and the other side insects really doesn't help with the discussion, and dehumanizing a whole swath of people really has dark consequences.
3 replies →
Speak for yourself, in Italy we are also closer to US "culture", but I do see the US as a bigger threat than China, simply because it's closer and it directly affects our politics.
This sounds like you are urging people not to disregard racism when comparing superpower regimes.
For a concrete example, consider e.g. Operation Condor which displaced my own family
> Operation Condor (Spanish: Operación Cóndor; Portuguese: Operação Condor) was a campaign of political repression by the right-wing dictatorships of the Southern Cone of South America, involving intelligence operations, coups, and assassinations of left-wing sympathizers in South America. Operation Condor formally existed from 1975 to 1983. Condor was formally created in November 1975, when Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet's spy chief, Manuel Contreras, invited 50 intelligence officers from Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Chile, Paraguay, and Uruguay to the Army War Academy in Santiago, Chile. The operation was backed by the United States, which financed the covert operations. France is alleged to have collaborated but has denied involvement. The operation ended with the fall of the Argentine junta in 1983.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Condor
Both of them.
Whataboutism isn’t a useful game. The claim was that they don’t interfere with politics of external countries. They do.
The claim is they don’t engage in warfare when they do, just exclusively in the digital domain for now. Believing it’ll stay there is naive.
Playing the moral superiority game is uninteresting in either direction. Games of power inherently are devoid of morality.
Ok, let's follow your rules then. If we remove morality, we are left with what? Pure numbers? If you want to be technically correct China foreign interventions are > 0, indeed. But the scale of US actions is, I would dare to say, at least one magnitude bigger. An empire should be judged for how they treat their own citizens, their allies and their enemies. And if we do that, maybe China and the US are not so different.
I’m confused. You start off like you’re going to disagree and then end with the same conclusion I was trying to suggest. Keep in mind I was replying to subvenir who said “eh China not bad - they’ve file nothing wrong to me”
1 reply →
I'd like you to familiarise yourself with a legal and societal principle we use in civil law countries:
> de minimis non curat praetor
Which basically means judges are not interested in minor disputes. When you add the USA to the mix, China's actions pale in comparison to the point of being negligible, no point in discussing them given the scale of USA's warmongering, overseas and local crimes. "They never interfered in [...]" is an exaggeration which shows the lack of importance of China's crimes when compared to the USA's, that's all.
The "whataboutism" here isn't a deflection strategy, it shows the hypocrisy and correctly minimises the scale of China's actions in comparison to the hypocrites'.
Whataboutism is a very useful game to reveal whether people are being honest or not.
If someone is vocally complaining about country A doing some oppressive activity, while ignoring country B doing 100x the same activity, the comparison does not forgive or excuse country A, or make them right or admirable.
But it does allow us to conclude that the person complaining is biased. Either they don't care about the oppressive activity and want to attack country A for some other reason. Or they have a particular fondness for country B and will never accept that it does wrong. Or some variation on these.
Except it’s op posting whataboutism not me - their claim is that China has done nothing wrong to them with the implication that the USA has. I was highlighting that China indeed likely has done the things they’re complaining about.
>The claim is they don’t engage in warfare when they do, just exclusively in the digital domain for now.
Come on, are you seriously equating hacking to literally bombing and killing people? That's just arguing in very bad faith.
Calling hacking "warfare" is just intellectually dishonest, if not downright disgusting toward the actual victims of American wars.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
how is this not a non sequitur in your head. genuine question.
Whataboutism is juvenile.
This is not whataboutism.
“China is evil.”
—- “But look at the United States! What about that?”
Is this not just whataboutism? It never adds much to the discussion.
It would be whataboutism if it was a random Joe saying "China is evil" not literally a company that 1) is in the US 2) has a strong influence in the government and legislations affecting them and their competition.
In this case it's just pointing out the propaganda and the contradiction.