Rhetoric about US values has been empty since Guantanamo Bay started housing "foreign militants". Europe seems to be the only place in the West where a commitment to human rights is sincere.

Really? 27% of Germans support the right to speech that offends minority groups, and less than half of Europeans as a whole [0]. A Swedish man was convicted for producing art that was deemed racist, and the owner of the gallery that displayed it was fined [1]. A man was famously prosecuted for a video of a dog performing a nazi salute [2]. A refugee may be expelled from Denmark after he left comments "celebrating" the Charlie Hebdo attacks [3]. I'm not saying these excuse things America has done, but you saying that Europe is the last place where liberty is valued is patently ridiculous.

[0]: https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/catos-let...

[1]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/22/swedish-artist...

[2]: https://www.newsweek.com/youtuber-count-dankula-avoids-jail-...

[3]: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/refugee-depo...

Reasonable people can disagree about the limits of free speech, and when it becomes an attack on others. The American obsession with allowing Nazis and racists has done nothing to improve the lives of its people.

I completely disagree. Seeing Westboro Baptist Church on TV spewing their vile hatred acts as a shining litmus test that I don’t live in a totalitarian state. Watching thousands of people actively try to protect victims of the Westboro hate, gives me faith that I live in a country filled with people with great ethical resolve and compassion towards their fellow man. It’s beautiful, and the essence of what makes me proud to be an American.

I think you're missing the point. An "attack on others" isn't something that most Americans should be limited, if you mean by attack what I believe you do (please clarify). I'm not sure why you think the power to limit speech can't be abused: even with strict protections, we've had awful majoritarian policies like the Sedition Act and McCarthyism. We protect everyone, Nazis and racists included, because if we give the government freedom to restrict the content of speech it will be abused when the "other side" gets power.

> We protect everyone.

Oh please… 28 US states have actual legislation to prohibit state offices from doing business with companies or individuals that even threaten to boycott Israel.

Not far from how NBA employees get censored by China.

And there is more to come…

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Anti-Boycott_Act

The first difference being that there was plenty of successful legal action against such laws and policies which led to the law congress passes being changed. Legal precedent on the issue is very clear and so challenges to it have been quite successful, something that never would have happened in China. And, of course, organizations that support BDS aren't being kicked out of America. This is a pretty bogus comparison.

It started long before that.

There’s no right to free speech in Europe, since for example many countries have laws against blasphemy.

Like where in Europe?

UK for starters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_and_Religious_Hatred_Ac...

Blasphemy laws have just been repackaged essentially under "anti hate speech" laws. They're palatable to the media and at the same time selectively-applicable which is ideal for population control.

The USA has been the sole military superpower for 30 years now, with more power than the rest of the world combined. If they wanted global dominance, they'd already have it long ago.

"Plans for global dominance" can mean more than just achieving it. One can also plan to maintain it or grow it. Perhaps it's just semantics but an important distinction.

In this particular case China's plan to achieve global dominance is in stark opposition to the US's plan to maintain global dominance.

>the US's plan to maintain global dominance

I really don't know what you're trying to say. If the USA achieved global dominance, there would be no China. There would only be the USA. Globally. Obviously, that's not the case.

> If the USA achieved global dominance, there would be no China. There would only be the USA

That's really not what those words mean. "Dominance" is the fact or state of being dominant, not the state of being the only one in existence. So what I said is that the US dominates the world (geo-political, economic, military, etc.).

Let's put it in more simple terms. If Mike Tyson dominated a boxing match it really doesn't mean he was prancing around alone in the ring. Just that if anyone contested that dominance he'd punch them harder. And if that didn't work he'd bite of their ear. Which is a far more appropriate analogy than it would first seem.

>. If the USA achieved global dominance, there would be no China.

And that day they would be no US West and East coast... populated. You know what I mean.

Also, China owns the US economy by buying its debt. Try to crash down China, and look how the Dow Jones gets more sunk than the Marianas.

Debt is serviced under a contract. The worst a lender can do is not give any future debt.

Now of course in the case of nation states, agreements are changeable by military and economic force, but in effect you would have to do more than simply hold debt to affect another counties economy.

China is the world's factory/warehouse today. Even more on a R&D world. Any war with China from the US would be shooting their feet themselves with a bazooka.

A factory and warehouse of civilian goods. That logic won’t stop people from going to war with China. It stopped no one from warring with the US, back when it was the major civilian good supplier.

I do think going to war with China is useless. The loss of life would be immense and I see no reason for people to die for ideological purposes. However, a Cold War is coming. No longer, can we pretend that China and the US will become genuine parters, with shard long term goals and policies. If we must be competitors, then it’s best to do it honestly and openly.

> If they wanted global dominance, they'd already have it long ago

They have global dominance, and they got it long ago. The issue at play is not that they want it, it's that they want to keep it.

Is MAD not a thing anymore?

Rhetoric is empty by definition, its purpose is to persuade. Also you’re speaking from a global point of view by addressing “the US” and “China” versus “our country” and “their country” so the idea that there exists “values and morals” in that context is also obviously incorrect as each culture has its own set. Even within a given culture there exists different sets. I’d go as far as to say that with the dissolution of Christianity as a cohesive unifying religion within the US values and morality no longer exist as such. Each person’s beliefs change almost daily given how fast information and ideas spread on the internet and social networks. Appeals to morality are essentially dead in my opinion

>I’d go as far as to say that with the dissolution of Christianity as a cohesive unifying religion within the US values and morality no longer exist as such. Each person’s beliefs change almost daily given how fast information and ideas spread on the internet and social networks. Appeals to morality are essentially dead in my opinion.

Yet in other developed countries (like many in Europe) where Christianity is no longer the dominant cultural institution, there is more social cohesiveness.

Religion in the US has been weaponised for political ends and became a means of tribal division in society.