this post was submitted on 16 Jun 2025
1129 points (96.7% liked)
People Twitter
7414 readers
1818 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.
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
I haven't done that even once this conversation. That would require me first to have been batted down on anything this conversation. Point me where I've done what you're accusing me of, even once.
However...
...You just did exactly that. Projection much?
Also, whataboutism.
Haven't done that either. In fact, I just spent time investigating the data you sent me, and conceded the possibility that you may be right on the relevant point, even if your overall perspective is still wrong.
That's very relevant to the point being discussed. What I said was that the war in Ukraine was contributing US overextension and decline, and the focus on military conflicts over peaceful development is causing it to lose ground to China. Did you lose the train of the conversation? My whole thesis is that the money spent in Ukraine would be better spent on peaceful economic investments, either at home or abroad. I don't recall making any arguments about "the moral relativity betwix the US and China," only comparing the facts of their spending and their general approaches to geopolitics.
See how you're trying to impose artificial limits on the conversation, excluding points that you don't like even when they come up naturally?
One of those links is a fucking search bar. That's like if I sent you a link to www.google.com and then asserted that it was "highly relevant," with no further explanation connecting it to anything. Clown shit.
Edit:
That's... the point. The time period is pretty old.
Ok, cool! So you agree that the US should copy China's approach of avoiding military entanglements like Ukraine and instead focus on peaceful economic development! Glad we got that cleared up.
(Apologies that this response took a minute, there were scythe-related hijinx)
…You just did exactly that. Projection much?
While it's not really a whatabboutism (since I'm not trying to deflect the conversation to an unrelated topic, I don't actually want to talk about the Uyghur right now), you're otherwise 100% correct. Explicitly, even! That's the whole reason I said it, to provide an (ironic) example and to point out your response in a way that is personally unimpeachable. How did you react to it when you read it?
One of those links is a fucking search bar.
Damn, sorry about the OECD link - I didn't catch that it was loading a cached page when I followed it. Public entity webdesign, what a charming thing. This one should be fixed. It's a great site to get familiar with in general, really. An invaluable source for a great many topics.See how you’re trying to impose artificial limits on the conversation, excluding points that you don’t like even when they come up naturally?
Again, you're not wrong and this was the explicit point. That's what all that lampshading I did was about.
[...]even if your overall perspective is still wrong.
I'm not sure I strictly disagree here - I'm curious why you think the US is overextending itself? In what ways have we overextended, or what signs of that are you seeing that I'm not of a potentially catastrophic strategic overinvestment are present in the Ukraine war? I won't argue that China isn't making great strides geopolitically, that is patently true, but the gains they are making are mainly at the Russian Federation's expense - China has moved in to support many regions that were once staunch bastions of Russocentric influence.That's not to say they're not gaining ground against the US, but the US and China's economies and development are closely tied together. Example: China is the #1 home country for foreign students studying in the US, in every university system with which I am familiar (which is west coast and ivy league I admit, I don't know much about student populations in the flyover states except to say that Earlham and OSU both follow this trend the last time I checked) and we sponsor thousands upon thousands of our graduate researchers to Chinese universities in kind. The US has as well entrusted a great deal of technological advances, even licenses for silicon design technology and other secrecy-order technologies like ultra-high-yield solar panels (rumored 45% efficiency) (this is the only S.O. technology I know of to be acknowledged) to China, and that wasn't even done for entirely hubristic or greed-based reasons. Realistically, China is the only near-peer power to the US, and (aside from that little whoops about russia) that's been true for a long damn time.
Anyways, Cooperation between the two states would be beneficial for the whole world. If we can both clear up our issues with homegrown fascists, and oligarch worship we might actually be able to get a whole lot of good done for the world, especially now that Russia has effectively removed itself from the world stage (and now stands impotently in the shadows, trying to be menacing). Joint US/China projects are already some of the most influential in the world, extending this would be to everyone's benefit.
Sorry, things are getting... dumb... here but I think that hits your major points. I don't like to do full point-by-point breakdowns, since it just spirals into longer and longer walls of text if both parties take to it, and I already spend enough of my time bickering with well-meaning randos on this website. This seems like a decent response to your overall thesis, though?
Ah and the edit points:
Oh come on, you're better than resorting to middleschool-tier baiting. We both know it's more complicated than you're presenting even if there's no chinese boots on the ground.
I think we might both be confused here; to my mind, bringing up the age of the data which is being used to address a historical point seems almost ontological. Why are we arguing about it?
Thank you for providing a serious response.
Aside from what I mentioned about countries turning to China because of our militaristic focus, I think the biggest sign is in domestic politics, with Trump.
Before Trump, there was this bipartisan consensus on what I call, "Idealist Interventionism," the idea that US foreign policy is, and should be, driven by benevolence and the defense and expansion of democracy. The abject failure of the War on Terror has bred a strong tendency of skepticism of this approach, manifesting in a variety of beliefs about why it isn't true or doesn't work.
It's a bit of a tangent but worth explaining, as I see it, there are three broad categories of critics of that approach (Liberalism): Nationalists, Libertarians, and Socialists. Nationalists think the problem is that foreign policy should be driven by overtly, aggressively, and unapologetically prioritizing "American interests." Libertarians generally don't like foreign entanglements because it's a form of "the government doing stuff," and they believe it will necessarily be conducted in an inefficient way. Socialists, such as myself, believe that the emphasis on the military over peaceful economic development is the problem.
I believe that the era of "Idealist Interventionism" being singularly dominant in American politics is gone. Trump has been successful because he has been able to court both the Nationalists and the Libertarians, while Kamala told the Socialists to get bent, and instead sought to build a bipartisan coalition represented by the Cheney's who are part of that old, bipartisan consensus. In my opinion, this is a sort of chauvinistic perspective that's failing to adapt to the times, and it will likely continue to fail until the Democrats get it through their heads to at least make gestures towards any of the critic groups - instead of dismissing them all as "Russian bots," which only makes it easier for Trump to paper over disagreements.
Currently, we are in crisis, because the ever-strengthening far-right is the only prominent political faction offering an alternative to a declining status quo that people are increasingly dissatisfied with, and this represents by far the greatest existential threat to the US of anything. Everything else comes second to that, if we hang on to Ukraine, but we turn into the Fourth Reich in the process, then what good is that?
If you want to argue that the conflict in Ukraine is largely unrelated to those economic conditions, you may be right. If you want to argue that military spending in general is, then you are wrong, but regardless, even if you are right, people still see billions going to war in Ukraine and Israel while they struggle to afford groceries, and "Why are we spending my tax dollars to fight a conflict halfway around the world? It's not our problem," is a fairly natural thought for people to have, for better or worse.
Either we need to keep people from having thoughts like that by avoiding such situations, or we need to provide a compelling (and simple/apparent) answer to those thoughts that doesn't involve turning to Trump and the far-right.
Absolutely, I 100% agree. I think that's fairly idealistic, but that's what I grew up envisioning in the 90's, "The End of History," when we could put aside conflicts and work together towards a common future. Unfortunately, I can't say I have confidence in that vision these days, because anti-China sentiment is so high, and there seems to be a bipartisan consensus around it.
My idealistic vision for US-China relations would be more like friendly competition, one where both countries compete to offer the better deal to developing and middle-income countries - while the US reduces military spending and avoids entanglements. Realistically, what I expect to happen is that the US will refuse to play that game and will continue trying to act like Superman as it becomes weaker and weaker, until such time that it starts WWIII in a desperate attempt to hold on to power. Or it could just gracefully accept decline, but like, Americans don't seem particularly prone to doing that.