• ramble81@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    7 hours ago

    I think their broader point was “it’s good till it isnt”. It feels like you’re looking at China as a savior. When instead it’s a “Oh, I wouldn’t say you’re free… more like under new management” scenario. They’re good till they aren’t, as we’ve seen with Taiwan.

    As much as globalization has connected us, we need to still focus on independent sustainability. Does that mean there becomes a lot of redundancies and costs, yes, but it also grants better independence as we’re clearly seeing what happens when a large power turns evil.

      • ramble81@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        7 hours ago

        Physical destruction isn’t the only measurement. What has China done to the Uyghurs? More damage than a bomb there. What about Tibetans? Tienamen Square? There is also their indirect support Russia and that definitely does involve bombs. You can’t just brush it off because “they’re not directly dropping them”. Just because it’s not “shock and awe” doesn’t mean there isn’t death and oppression.

        • NonconfrontationaI@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          7 hours ago

          And the US has done all of that, dropped millions of tons of bombs on civilians, and worse, lol.

          It is objectively good for the US to lose power and for China to gain power, lol.

          • shawn1122@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            edit-2
            4 hours ago

            This doesn’t have to be a simple dualism, there is a third option ie. it would be better for the US to lose power and others (not China) to gain power. The more equally power is distributed in the world the better a shot we have at balance. The last thing the world needs is a “G2”.

          • ramble81@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            6 hours ago

            When did I say either one was good. Re-read my original comment. My point was for independent power, not just switching from one “master” to another. It would do good for both China and the US to lose their soft power and have a more level shift of independence among nations.

        • NonconfrontationaI@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 hours ago

          Also you think what China has done to the Uyghurs, which is re-education, is worse than bombing them all to death??

          Fuck is wrong with you lol?