I think the trick is to understand it, and once you realize what your choices are, then it's an easy decision not dictated by fear. That is, you either work towards a future where choice remains, or you concede choice until you have none left.
Reality is made of results, not intentions, so ultimately it's those that we're accountable for. This is one of the most considerable challenges for a species with such creativity, emotional drive, and long vision.
I fear the results of a world where China's deliberate moves towards dominance are unopposed, or ineffectively opposed. Even if everyone has the right intentions as we face down that risk, it's the results that matter.
The means create the ends, and the ends do not justify means, in my opinion. I disagree that the means, or intent as you say, is unimportant.
Your emotional reaction is a choice. You can choose to both not be afraid and still walk through fire, so to speak. Proactively exercising your right to free speech will set you on the path towards the ends you desire.
>You can choose to both not be afraid and still walk through fire, so to speak.
Fear is a healthy emotion, properly tempered. And it's an entirely rational response to a threat to my freedom and way of life. China is no less than that.
>Yes, and, expressing emotions helps us move beyond them.
Yes and sometimes in expressing those emotions we realize that they're underlayed by a logical basis that our instinct was informing us about, as when we fear the rise of a genocidal communist dictatorship as a global power monger.
It's certainly up to you how to feel about being faced with that. I can't say I fear China taking over. Some may perceive power as a position of relaxation, but it's really about responsibility, and I don't think the Chinese government wants that. They just want other countries to let them manage things how they see fit, and they currently view influencing us as a means to achieve that. Also, the subjugation of China's population is aided by the rest of the world, in a sense, when we make purchases primarily based on price. Not to mention issues with language, etc. China is the biggest country the world's ever seen. That doesn't mean they're about to conquer the world. Not saying we shouldn't be prepared though.
this part I'm not too sure about. Historically speaking, China has been rather "introverted" as a country. They care about making sure their people are well fed and all, but seem to show a distinct lack of imperialism compared to say, the Romans, or Arabs under early Islam, Napoleonic France or Nazi Germany.
Modern China exhibits genuine imperialism. They've even developed and published plans for dominating world standards bodies by 2035[1]. They're crafting a gigantic blue water navy[2]. They maintain a standing army with larger numbers of soldiers than the US, to put on those ships[3]. And they have no qualms about exerting their power globally, challenging freedom of navigation at sea[4] and territorial integrity on land[5]. In their meticulous and naive way, they are most certainly pursuing a world domination strategy.
I'm not sure any of this stands out to me as particularly imperialistic. The standards thing just seems like a sensible move to try and get leadership in high tech industries, which any country would be smart to do. As for the military aspects, I think this is a bit funny. China has 2m active military personnel vs 1.3m US active personnel, which doesn't seem outlandish whey you compare populations.
As for the fleet and the disputes, we are literally talking about disputes between China and the US in the South China sea. All these disputes are quite clearly about China being pissed off that the US is projecting power right on their doorstep. It's similar to Russia parking its missiles in Cuba - completely unacceptable to the US. I don't think it's unreasonable for China to be looking at finding ways to challenge that hegemony.
I'm not going to try and make the claim that US and China are similar regimes- they're not, not at all. I don't beleive for a second that a hegemonic China with power similar to what the US has had would be anywhere near as good as the US has (and I'm not saying the US is perfect). But I do think there's a certain level of asymmetrical judgement here. Why is the US running warships through disputed waters off the coast of China? That seems a lot more like US Imperialism than Chinese Imperialism.
>All these disputes are quite clearly about China being pissed off that the US is projecting power right on their doorstep.
The South China Seas dispute is, in fact, primarily between China and a series of smaller nations like the Philippines and Japan. International governing bodies including an UNCLOS tribunal have consistently ruled against China's claims of sovereignty to open sea, but China keeps on doing it anyway.
I’m not defending China’s claims- they’re clearly fairly spurious and embedded in a fairly questionable end of WWII. The truth is it’s just a pretext for having a gateway from the South China Sea to the rest of the world- which I don’t think is particularly unreasonable as an aim. The question is why US war ships are 7000 miles from the mainland US, if I had to pick I would say that is far more imperialistic. And again to reiterate- I prefer the US as a hegemonic power, but let’s be real about what’s happening.
>The truth is it’s just a pretext for having a gateway from the South China Sea to the rest of the world- which I don’t think is particularly unreasonable as an aim.
But you're shifting around from principles to consequentialism. Suddenly, whatever rules China breaks, even if they are extremely serious ones to do with territorial control that underlie the peaceful international order we've enjoyed since WW2 ended, it's fine with you as long as it's in pursuit of an aim that you consider reasonable?
We've banned this account for using HN for political/nationalistic battle and also for having a trollish username - on the latter point, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32253323.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll use HN as intended in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
You're right, total false equivalence. Plain clothes thugs hired or forced to show up in person, and you can assume plain clothes users are hired or forced to comment online too.
It's how they stay in power, a living army ready to deploy for anything that makes them look bad.
Sure I'd do the same for my country, but the difference is I am not forced to do it. I choose to defend our values while earning a decent living.
