this post was submitted on 21 Jan 2025
450 points (97.3% liked)
Science
3640 readers
156 users here now
General discussions about "science" itself
Be sure to also check out these other Fediverse science communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If we were a smarter society, we’d end our stupid cold war with them and cooperate.
If they were a more humane society, we likely would.
More humane like Nazi-America, or more humane like Warcrimes-Russia? Description unclear, please clarify.
More humane like the best of us wish to be and the majority of us never will be
More humane as in respecting human rights I suppose
Is there a state that is not disrespecting human rights ? I for one haven't heard of any.
Degrees in hell maybe.
andorra?
To clarify, what you're doing is "what-aboutism". Asking China to be more humane is not a comment on anything but China being more humane.
They weren't just asking China to be more humane, though. They were suggesting that China doesn't deserve our cooperation because they are inhumane, which implies we have the moral high ground and is explicitly hypocritical. It isn't whataboutism to point out hypocrisy.
There's a lot of assuming, implying, and suggesting in that take. The original just said if they were more humane we would work with them.
You don't at all see how that implies moral superiority? Or are you just giving them the benefit of the doubt?
The problem is holding China to a higher standard than we hold ourselves to.
I mean I could see how you could get that but it's not how I read it. I read it as they are not humane enough to effectively collaborate with.
I mean, listen, America is a huge hypocrisy so I'm not saying people aren't doing that, I guess I just read it more literally.
It's a bad take either way, and that interpretation makes way less sense. The reason we don't collaborate with China is geopolitical, and has nothing to do with ethics or China being too inhumane to effectively collaborate with (whatever that means).
I mean, I'm aware of the actual reason, I've never argued that lol.
China could stand to be more humane, but it wouldn't make the US cooperate with them.
Honestly China might start looking moderate compared to what I expect our new Dear Leader to do in the coming years.
Try to read up and understand what whataboutism means. Because you clearly didn't get the point of my comment.
You brought up other societies as compared them to us. It's the definition of what-aboutism, just read up on it again to make sure.
Is the argument here that China isn't worthy of the United States' cooperation? We here in the US need to get over ourselves and stop acting as if we have the moral high ground over everyone else. There are a lot of things about the US that are far from humane, and we do cooperate with countries that engage in far worse, often on our behalf. Our adversarial disposition towards China has nothing to do with human rights and everything to do with geopolitics.
Yeah more humane like Israel… America has been installing dictators all around the world for decades what are you talking about? You think America cares about humanity? You cant even birth a child without a $10,000+ bill.
America cares about moneyyyyy and nothing more
We topple democratically-elected leaders because it suits our economic plans. People downvoting the above comment don't know shit about history. And that's because our schools don't accurately teach it.
More like if they were willing to embrace capitalistic western values and bend over for America whenever we're feeling frisky
Thinking that china isn't capitalist just because the ruling party has communist in the name is funny
Never said they weren't. Just that it doesn't align with capitalistic western values.