Are we pretending that any of this has to do with combatting oppression?

So.. just to be clear. Are you aware of the consequences of economic inequality? You know, the greatly inequal opportunities, the drastic bargaining power difference, etc.

Do you think China is not going to exploit its economic power to achieve political goals?

Are you aware of China's political goals? Do you agree with them?

Just to name a few: censorship, take Taiwan, suppression of self-determination of minorities, gaining more territory in the East China Sea (island building) from its neighbors.

Counter-question: How exactly is the US combating oppression in China? Apart from ruining your own relationship with your 3rd biggest trade partner, that is.

If China abide by WTO rules, environmental protections required by developed countries and had to abide by basic human rights for religious groups the Muslim Uighur, Tibetan Buddhists, Confucian Falun Gong and other groups would be freer [1,2,3,4]. Abiding by these rules would also make it hard to make their social credit system effective in stopping anyone that themselves or with a family member that voice dissent from taking public transit, transacting, getting a job etc [5]

All great gains for the Chinese people.

[1] https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/09/25/worl...

[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Falun_Gong

[3] https://www.voanews.com/south-central-asia/tibetan-re-educat...

[4] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Credit_System

China today is a lot more free and open than when Nixon went to China in '72 to play them out against the Soviets.

The real issue is that as China continues to grow economically, its military power grows as well and ultimately the US is no longer the dominant military power in the south china sea. Rhetorics about fair trade, democracy, freedom is just that, rhetorics; international politics is about raw power.

Europe has no military interest in the south china sea. And China does not pose a military threat to us. Therefore we are fine with China's continuous growth as it benifits us economically.

The EU has put forth a picture of itself as a defender of human rights for both EU citizens and global residents.

There are two main streams of human rights policy and action within the European Union. One is to protect the fundamental human rights for EU citizens, and the other is to promote human rights worldwide.

https://europa.eu/european-union/topics/human-rights_en

I don't see how that is compatible with the frequent violations of human rights in China. As an above commenter said: it seems to boil down to money.

Because it is bullshit. The current US administration is pushing issues now that it has ignored in the past. Eventhough in the broad view these issues are improving dramatically. Look at China today compared with how it was two or three decades ago and it will show massive improvements on living standard, environment, human rights, protection of minorities, intectual property rights, rule of law etc.

I don't have a feel for what is BS in the usual rhetoric, but I saw something interesting today - among the measures reportedly being contemplated by the administration are the elimination of "waivers" for Chinese companies that are listed on US stock exchanges without meeting US accounting/auditing standards.

Now, there may be nuance or whatever that I'm not aware of, but that actually sounds quite reasonable on the face of it. Why not require Chinese companies to meet US standards to be listed here? Maybe waivers were a type of corruption, even if well intended?

Environmental? China emit more CO2 than the EU and US combined https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/20...

Human rights? They have started putting Uighurs, Buddhists and Falun Gong into re-education camps https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Falun_Gong

Two previous points also counter the rule of law point, which is admittedly a western concept.

China is 1.4 B people; why wouldn't it have higher co2 emissions than EU and USA?

Anyways. We can chat about particular data points. But if you look at the broad picture over decades; you really have to be willfully blind to deny massive improvements that have happened.

The claim though was that it had improved on these and other points. And at least on these there seem to be a big and widely published degradation.

Can always talk about data on the other points as well to see what they say.

The EU consistently promotes these ideas in trade agreements (for example simply by requiring equal access to courts, administration, markets to anyone, respect for privacy and consumer rights, health safety and environmental protection). They are alas not backed on a lot of issues by other geopolitical entities.

It's not more free, less deadly though. Back then there was Mao Zedong Thought now we have Xi Jinping Though.

Please don't take HN threads further into boilerplate flamewars. We've had to ask you this before.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

How is this contributing to a flame war? It’s facts relevant to the topic as well as to the parents comments claim and it took me a long time to research thoughtfully.

It is inconvenient and unfortunate facts. I also wish they were not true.

When someone brings in a wall of links into an argument, especially an intensely polarizing argument like the nationalistic kind, it never has the desired effect of grounding the discussion in facts. It comes across as a barrage and makes the other side dig in deeper and get more defensive. Hence, more flamewar.

I don't mean to impugn your research or the time you spent on your comment. But unfortunately that style of comment pattern-matches to the "list of pre-existing talking points brought in to further pre-existing agenda" genre, simply because the latter is so much more common in internet arguments of this nature. That's why I used the word "boilerplate", which obviously didn't apply to this case.

I would agree that replying to others with out of context links pushing a counter-narrative is an unhealthy way to engage others.

Like most others in polarizing discussions I sometimes fall into the trap of misinterpreting what the other say and therefore critiquing what I thought they said where more clarification would be good. Do you think that happened here?

I try to avoid the previously trap, and recognize it. With regards to providing informational links in this particular instance I don’t know how we can make progress across divides without providing links to why we have a different viewpoints, and engage in the other persons arguments and supporting evidence.

If you have any thoughts on how the inconsistencies between the parents claims and what seem to be the well published situation on the ground could be highlighted in a better way that would be helpful. Right now I am reading “how to have impossible conversations” by Bogossian and in general studying why my viewpoint opponents think what they think. Benjamin Boynces series on evergreen is incredibly interesting. Hopefully I’ll learn something good.

"How can a country that oppress people they didn’t in 1972 and moreover do so more effectively be freer?"

Cultural Revolution [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution

Wow, you cited so many sources to support your views. Am impress

Hey, could you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and follow the rules when posting here?

Yeah a little bit like the US, supporting Saudi Arabia whatever they do.