I don't think it's hyperbole. The CCP seeks to control social media by threatening to imprison anyone who speaks against it, even while outside China. And this isn't the first Chinese government to be accused of establishing too much state control over businesses [1].

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

> Not the great empire builders?

They haven't been a threat for centuries.

> Not the USSR?

The USSR's been dead for 3 decades now.

> Not even, y'know, the ancient chinese empires who subjugated most of asia?

They don't exist anymore, either.

I think you whooshed on the point. Indeed, all those other guys were worse. And they're not here, and we are. China isn't the threat they're being presented as, they're just a convenient point of outrage for a demographic that craves outrage.

In fact, if the upthread point had labelled the PRC the greatest threat to global freedom of the past three decades, then I'd be inclined to agree! But that's not what it said. And we made it through the cold war just fine.

> I think you whooshed on the point.

I could say the same about your own grasp of the point; it doesn't seem relevant at all to bring up historical examples of threats to global freedom when we're discussing current examples of threats to global freedom - the PRC pretty unambiguously being one of them (and the US being another, to be clear).

The original commenter being replied to wrote "that this world has ever seen".

>The Thucydides Trap, also referred to as Thucydides's Trap, is a term popularized by American political scientist Graham T. Allison to describe an apparent tendency towards war when an emerging power threatens to displace an existing great power as the international hegemon. It was coined and is primarily used to describe a potential conflict between the United States and the People's Republic of China.

One shouldn't lump all antagonism towards a government together as a single thing.

You can live in China, think the US government has a history of war crimes, subjugation, imperialism, plunder, genocide, and geopolitical treachery, and yet not want to go to war with the US.

You can live in the US, think the Chinese government is engaging in genocide and creating an uniquely dystopian surveillance state where all thought and behavior can be monitored and shaped, and yet not want to go to war with China.

I'm sure this trap is a real phenomenon, but pretty much every large human empire has been powered by a helm regularly committing horrible atrocities, so one hegemon will probably always be able to legitimately condemn a up-and-comer, and vice versa.

I think it can be a bit dangerous to counter such discussion with accusations of war-seeking, because it lets rulers get away with more than they should. At least unless you have specific evidence suggesting the discussion isn't simply a case of people who are genuinely concerned about people for humanist reasons.

It's the full pattern.

Does anyone think the USA actually cares about central asian muslims? With our record and the records of our allies?

Or is this coming from collective anxiety over being eclipsed?

I think the USA (taken as an aggregate of its citizens' views) has a far stronger ethical compass than your comment seems to suggest.

So to answer your question, yes to the former question. Maybe yes to the latter question too, but as an "and" not an "or".

There seems to be a disconnect between what the US says and what it does. I certainly believe US people have a strong ethical compass in their world view, at least from the people I interact with and what I read every day. At the same time, with all the things the US does, especially in the middle East, it's hard to take that "moral compass" seriously.

There is no right way and ethical way to do things in the Middle East - there is just the weird unsolvable status quo and weird things the US or anyone else can do - which might not actually have an effect on anything. I understand the criticism but I never read a book that showed a path forward.

Drone strikes that kill far more civilians than intended targets are pretty cut-and-dry unethical, IMO.

I'm not necessarily ethically opposed to assassination. But better to let 1000 terrorists and murderers live than to kill one innocent person. Assassinations should be done with pistols and poison, not explosives.

Nobody dragged the US into the middle East. Why is there anything to do beyond acting as honest broker diplomatically?

I'm european (English/German) I am quite happy that the US is in the Middle East...otherwise we all would have to be. I see no chance that the Middle East becomes a nice peaceful place between the Saudis, Iran, Israel and Turkey (all others are just puppets). I am not sure what an honest broker would do, I am not sure that anybody in the relevant parties wants an honest broker. No question there have been terrible mistakes that cost an enormous amount of human suffering. I am not quite sure that the situation would be much different in another world. If the US had not invaded Iraq...would Iraq now be a stable happy country? No, why would it be?

> Nobody dragged the US into the middle East.

Not sure that's a true statement.

Is there any country where there isn’t a strong disconnect between what they say and what they do?

I mean, that’s kind of a human thing.

You have to compare it to what everyone else does in the Middle East. Israel kills Iranians, Iran sponsors militants in Lebanon and Yemen, Saudi butchers Saudis...pick a counterfactual (Saddam's Iraq? Taliban-controlled Afghanistan?) and compare that counterfactual to US activity.

The US as an aggregate of it's citizens' views must be viewed through the lens of it's leadership. From their actions, we can see it doesn't have an ethical compass at all. Unless of course you mean this in the most absolute sense, where there is an ethical judgement being made about drone strikes on children and it is thought to be acceptable.

The American people may care, and it is money to drive American people to think in the direction money planned. If you think the media is on your side, think again.

Think Iraq, all the evidence of WMD

Yes, but I think the point was that the rhetoric above, about a nation that was "single greatest threat to freedom, and human rights this world has ever seen", absolutely sounds like it's written by someone who very much does want to go to war with China.

> sounds like it's written by someone who very much does want to go to war with China.

To me it sounds like they're saying we ought to be wary of the threat China poses to freedom. If they thought we should go to war they would say so. I only see people here calling for awareness and preparedness, not war.

Not going to fully defend the OP but the problem is things like the USSR were, in retrospect, unsustainable. The CCP, on the other hand, may have created just the right blend between totalitarianism, communism, and capitalism that is both sustainable and has global reach. We should not want to end up all-consumed by this form of government given how oppressive it is, and only time will tell just how all-consuming it can become.

Meh. No one thought the USSR was "unsustainable" in the 80's when they were an evil empire. And within the decade they were gone. Nazi Germany didn't look "unsustainable" either, until they lost. All great powers look unbeatable during their ascendance and weak in retrospect.

Could things get worse? Sure. But all I'm saying is that things have already been much, much, much worse. And we came out OK.

I’m not disagreeing with your first point, but the fact is exactly what you said: it’s unknowable until after the collapse if it was the case. One day we will know if that’s true for the current regime. I do think the odds of it being both sustainable and not all-consuming are low, however.

> Meh. No one thought the USSR was "unsustainable" in the 80's when they were an evil empire.

Actually, both the guy who coined that phrase and others did:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2011/07/predicting-soviet-col...

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

"... vastly more able to share their opinions widely and securely than..." CORRECTION - They are able to share their "approved" opinions.

No, they're able to share their opinions opinions. I have chinese coworkers who will, given the opportunity, bitch about their government the same way we do. No, they aren't going to put it in email. They aren't going to use WeChat to do it. But they can absolutely do it. I've seen them do it when they're in the US for meetings. I've seen them do it over dinner at public restaurants in China.

They simply are more "free", by any reasonable standard, than their grandparents in the PRC or their compatriots behind the iron curtain. Quite frankly they're more free to express inconvienent opinions than most minorities were in the US for most of the 20th century.

The PRC government does some awful things. But the kind of hyperbolic nonsense we're engaging in here isn't helping the situation.