It is. But if a US company like Paypal decides to blacklist me for whatever reason (data shared from other companies) - the consequences for me are way higher.
Donald Trump is not the only American but he is the only American that matters for foreign policy, considering that checks and balances that are supposed to reign him in have been shown to have no teeth.
Yeah, but it seems like half of the other US Americans want him to represent them.
So it's not unlikely that whoever comes after Trump acts like him too.
China is an expansionist dictatorship. It would be ridiculous to suggest it is more trustworthy than the US.
The US is actually acting rationally IMO. People just look at headlines and do not dig into the reasons. You might not agree with the reasoning, but it is not irrational. For example the tariffs clearly follow from arguments made by Trump's appointees (such as Bessent and Marin) even before the election, and definitely before being appointed.
China is definitely not a fun neighbour if you're The Philippines.
One of the big problem with the US suddenly becoming so adversarial (whether rationally so or not) is that the choice for Europe may be to choose between the lesser of 2 evils, which in Europe's eyes could very well end up being China. China at least tend to behave consistently and predictably over a long term.
The US radically changing behaviour every 4 years, and now even multiple times within a 100 day span, is just really really difficult to deal with. Not to mention making direct threats to European countries and generally working to oppose European interests.
> China is an expansionist dictatorship. It would be ridiculous to suggest it is more trustworthy than the US.
China never threatened to annex portions of EU countries, unlike the US.
If anything, China is definitely more reliable, as its only disputes with EU are on trade, not anything ideological or that threatens the integrity of each party.
EU has issues with human rights violations regularly happening in China.
China has even sanctioned European politicians voicing critique.
Only recently some of those sanctions were lifted by China so they can negotiate trade agreements with the EU.
China might be more reliable than the US right now, but ideologically they are further away from the EU than the US I think.
EU has issues with human rights violations regularly happening in China. China has even sanctioned European politicians voicing critique.
Does China sanction France for its role in suppressing parts of Africa?[0] In the video comments, a lot of French citizens never even heard about it. That tells you that the French government is also hiding a ton of atrocities it's committing to its citizens, right?
Why is the EU judging when they still violate human rights themselves?
I think when Europeans criticize China for not having the same values as them, they should learn some history about how European powers tried to tear China apart and take advantage of it. Start with the photo of Austria-Hungary, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United States and the United Kingdom forces inside the Forbidden City.[1]
Perhaps China not having the same values of European powers is a good thing in terms of overall peace?
I would love to hear from EU citizens on why they should be the judge of all human moral values when their countries have arguably done more collectively to disturb the peace of others in the last 300 years than any country in Asia.
I don't think it's valid to say you can only criticize somebody if you are doing better on that front.
We should all watch and criticize other countries so humanity can improve.
> Perhaps China not having the same values of European powers is a good thing in terms of overall peace?
I fail to see why that could be the case. Why would different values support peace?
> I would love to hear from EU citizens on why they should be the judge of all human moral values when their countries have arguably done more collectively to disturb the peace of others in the last 300 years than any country in Asia.
Again you assume one is only able to voice concerns if you are doing better in a certain area. You are also treating different governments of different times in a country as a single entity. FYI: In most countries there is more than one party in government over time and parties have different values.
I don't think it's valid to say you can only criticize somebody if you are doing better on that front. We should all watch and criticize other countries so humanity can improve.
I think it's valid. Fix yourself first. Telling someone else to stop doing something you're doing yourself is meaningless - especially when the EU is trying to position as the morally superior entity.
I fail to see why that could be the case. Why would different values support peace?
Because we've seen what happens when Europe has more power than the rest of the world. It wasn't pretty for the rest of the world. Let's see what China can do.
Again you assume one is only able to voice concerns if you are doing better in a certain area. You are also treating different governments of different times in a country as a single entity. FYI: In most countries there is more than one party in government over time and parties have different values.
Yes, I'm assuming that. EU wants to be a leader. EU wants to sanction countries they think is doing something wrong. So why doesn't EU sanction itself first?
> We should all watch and criticize other countries so humanity can improve.
Many (if not most) Europeans think it is perfectly fine when they criticise other countries; but when people from other countries criticise Europe, these very same Europeans tend to agitatedly accuse these critics of interference in their domestic affairs.
From these Europeans' point of view, humanity progresses in pre-ordained stages, and Europe has already reached the end of history, the pinnacle of human development, and other countries just need to catch up.
> because we've seen what happens when Europe has more power than the rest of the world. It wasn't pretty for the rest of the world.
Indeed. At the height of their power, the Europeans and the Americans colonised, pillaged, plundered, murdered, started wars, and enslaved. This isn't ancient history either; e.g. after World War 2 the French tried to re-colonise Vietnam, fought in a war against the Algerians to prevent them from declaring independence, and has continued meddling in the Sahel States up to the present day, among other atrocities.
And don't get me started about how the IMF has frequently been wielded as an extractive tool by Western nations to exploit impoverished countries in times of desperation. So when the West falsely accuses [0][1] China of debt trap diplomacy, the hypocrisy is palpable.
Well, as I mentioned, many (or most) Europeans believe that they have arrived at the end of history, the peak of enlightenment. So according to their belief, Europeans are absolutely qualified to be the arbiter.
Well, one difference is, in EU I can (allmost) say whatever I want. In china I clearly cannot. Just mentioning 35 year old events is not possible. That is a big difference.
There is an actual genocide going on in Palestine, with two million people trapped in a strip of land and bombed and starved until they consent to emigrate- and the EU is silent and failed to sanction Israel in any way. How can you seriously talk about "issues with human rights violations"? It's ridiculous.
No, not EU countries, but they did annex Tibet, several islands in the South China Sea, and they have every intention of invading Taiwan in the future. Then there’s the belt and road initiative, which is essentially neocolonialism.
Edit: I also forgot to mention their human rights violations with regards to the Uyghurs and other minority groups.
Eh, US is threatening to annex Greenland, part of Panama and Canada, which may be more relevant for EU actually.
I can produce quite a list of human rights violations from the US too, if we are playing this game.
I was not trying to paint China as a happy friendly country. I was just saying that right now China is less of a threat to EU than the US, when those in power in the US numerous times voiced their ideological hatred for Europe
I happen to live in China right now and am using a VPN. I find your comments to be fundamentally incorrect. I live here more than 20 years and can't find any information about genocide, and I have a lot of (I suppose you are talking about) Xinjiang friends. Yes, there are extremists in Xinjiang with foreign funding. And The the government prepares extreme religious individuals for modern society. This process involves learning Chinese and learning basic skills to have a job. If people really died there, why we Chinese people don't know it? I mean I can literally drive to Xinjiang to check these information.
If you don't believe my words and still think people are oppressed in Xinjiang or whatever place, please apply a Chinese visa and visit here. If your visit is short-term, then a visa is not even needed.
Your narratives about China reflect self-projection. Western historical treatment of minorities doesn't mirror our approach. It's like saying Chinese people are too oppressed to afford bread or are forced to pick cotton—ignoring that bread isn't a Chinese staple and cotton-picking doesn't carry any other cultural meanings here.
By the way, if I said capitalism makes Americans too poor to eat rice, wouldn't you find that ridiculous? I'm sure you would, because you guys generally don't eat rice. This projection is exactly what your views about China represent.
"Yes, there are extremists in Xinjiang with foreign funding."
Radical islmaists are definitely a thing, but don't you think, the chinese government considers anyone extremist not ok with one party rule?
(I don't expect a honest answer, since you need a vpn to communicate)
And that you don't find information and that your chinese friends don't find know about controversal topic, then this is rather a obvious sign to me, that chinese censorship is working.
> Radical islmaists are definitely a thing, but don't you think, the chinese government considers anyone extremist not ok with one party rule?
This issue is essentially one of trust. If a person cannot be trusted by others, then even if they list facts, others won't believe them. Therefore, even if the Chinese government proves that every extremist is a real one, the West will still believe there are innocent people wrongfully accused among them. I think only mutual communication and firsthand witnessing can eliminate trust issues. According to this webpage[1], if you are a citizen of those listed countries, you can visit China for 30 days without needing a visa.
Chinese censorship operates with a 'turn a blind eye' approach rather than strict enforcement. The government allows citizens access to outside information while maintaining nominal restrictions. GitHub exemplifies this—officially censored but widely used by Chinese developers without consequence.
VPNs and encrypted messaging apps like Telegram are technically forbidden but practically tolerated. This selective enforcement extends to politically sensitive topics. While the Tiananmen Square events of 1989 remain officially censored, most Chinese citizens know about them through VPN access. Other historical events like the Cultural Revolution are not cencored and are actually taught in schools.
About me, I have studied in the U.S. and lived extensively in China, so I guess, from your standard, I'm one of the least brainwashed people in China? I know lots of cencored information but none of them relates to Xinjiang opperession. Therefore, as an educated person who lived in U.S. and China, I can confidently state that reported oppressions in Xinjiang are false narratives.
You also talked about one-party rule. Oh c'mon, a lot of people, including more than 50 minority groups, dislike the one-party rule. It's meaningless for the government to oppress one specific group.
Extremists face detainment in re-education camps for two specific reasons: First, their radical beliefs exceed public tolerance—unlike most Muslims, they engage in violence. Second, they combine religious extremism with separatist ambitions. These interventions target violent extremism and territorial separatism specifically, not related to the one-party rule. Furthermore, the number of extremists is very small. I don't think they constitute a large portion in Uyghurs. So it's not millions of extremists, I think it's at most thousands.
You may heard lots of such fake news from BBC, CNN, NYT newspaper, etc, and these media outlets function as propaganda tools. I can give you an evidence: BBC and CNN used to report a lot Chinese human rights violations. But during the Trump administration, they magically fliped to support China and praise China a lot. This dramatic shift proves that they are political tools, or at least part-time political tools when speaking of China, that simply convey the message what they're ordered to convey.
If Western critics truly wanted to challenge China and make Chinese people wake effectively, I can give they some suggesions. They can talk about
1. unaffordable housing prices in China,
2. persistent low incomes in China, and
3. environmental cleanliness. I mean most places, excluding big cities like SF or NYC, are cleaner than places in China.
These are real problems that resonate with Chinese people rather than fabricated oppression narratives.
If you want to check my words, feel free to visit China to see the reality for themselves.
It shouldn't be surprising that a group which commits a genocide and has the power to censor the media would censor the media about the genocide, so when you go looking at media it censors, you don't see anything about a genocide.
If you wanted to know about genocide in China you'd have to go to non-Chinese media. Germany and the USA do the same thing.
By that viewpoint, everything is rational. If someone hears voices in their head that tell them to shoot up a school, there’s also some reasoning that may lead them to actually do it. That doesn’t mean it’s rational. Can you give an example of behavior you consider to be irrational?
No, saying a particular thing is rational is very different from claiming everything is rational.
People will make the wildest claims about Trumps' polices, even people who should know better. A good example is Jeffrey Sachs saying Trump's policies should would fail an economics class - but one of the people devising Trump's economic polices got a PhD from Harvard while Sachs was a professor there!
The US is already unlawfully sending people to foreign prisons. The US has over decades worked with dictatorships where it benefited them. The US has repeatedly and systematically overthrown legitimate democratic governments in favor of dictatorships where it benefited them. The US is founded on genocide of native Americans. The US has time and time again invaded countries for their resources. The US is the only country that has used nuclear weapons in war (twice).
Don't pretend that the US is some paragon of virtue.
China talks big about Taiwan but actions speak louder than words. So far I see very little action from China and a lot from the US spanning a century of aggression.
You know, sometimes I really wonder, if Uyghurs aren't white, are US/EU still going to make stretch to call the human right abuse during China's version of "counter-terrorism war" in Xinjiang "genocide" or not.
Huh? So China dealing with an internal extremist Islam problem is a genocide?
But the US funding/providing weapons to Israel in the Gaza war is not a genocide?
China is an expansionist dictatorship. It would be ridiculous to suggest it is more trustworthy than the US.
The US has bombed 29 countries since WW2. How many has China bombed? The US has installed dictators in foreign countries, influenced countless democratic elections. How many has China installed?
Nowhere did the comment they replied to claim that the war in Gaza isn't a genocide.
The author I responded to thinks China is worse in terms of genocides/killing people than the US. Therefore, the US is more "trustworthy". I gave examples countering that.
The US has always dealt with Islam extremists with bombs and killings. China is doing it through education camps. No, the camps probably aren't pleasant. It's a hard problem that requires a hard solution. But to me, China's way seems way more humane. Viewed in another lens, perhaps China deserves a Nobel Peace prize for their camps instead of being labeled as a genocide.
And FB, Insta, Google, Youtube, ..?
The only difference with TikTok is that it is based in china.