273
submitted 23 hours ago by eicker@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] NonconfrontationaI@lemmy.ml 13 points 18 hours ago

The less share of the pie America takes up, the less it can bully other countries into its evil bullshit. So yeah, this is objectively good.

[-] ramble81@lemmy.zip 10 points 18 hours ago

I think their broader point was “it’s good till it isnt”. It feels like you’re looking at China as a savior. When instead it’s a “Oh, I wouldn’t say you’re free… more like under new management” scenario. They’re good till they aren’t, as we’ve seen with Taiwan.

As much as globalization has connected us, we need to still focus on independent sustainability. Does that mean there becomes a lot of redundancies and costs, yes, but it also grants better independence as we’re clearly seeing what happens when a large power turns evil.

[-] NonconfrontationaI@lemmy.ml 1 points 18 hours ago

How many bombs has China dropped in the last 50 years? How about America?

This is objectively a good thing.

[-] ramble81@lemmy.zip 9 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago)

Physical destruction isn’t the only measurement. What has China done to the Uyghurs? More damage than a bomb there. What about Tibetans? Tienamen Square? There is also their indirect support Russia and that definitely does involve bombs. You can’t just brush it off because “they’re not directly dropping them”. Just because it’s not “shock and awe” doesn’t mean there isn’t death and oppression.

[-] queermunist@lemmy.ml 1 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

Would you rather live in Xinjiang or in Gaza?

[-] NonconfrontationaI@lemmy.ml -3 points 17 hours ago

And the US has done all of that, dropped millions of tons of bombs on civilians, and worse, lol.

It is objectively good for the US to lose power and for China to gain power, lol.

[-] shawn1122@sh.itjust.works 8 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago)

This doesn't have to be a simple dualism, there is a third option ie. it would be better for the US to lose power and others (not China) to gain power. The more equally power is distributed in the world the better a shot we have at balance. The last thing the world needs is a "G2".

[-] NonconfrontationaI@lemmy.ml -4 points 15 hours ago

I disagree, lol.

[-] ramble81@lemmy.zip 3 points 17 hours ago

When did I say either one was good. Re-read my original comment. My point was for independent power, not just switching from one “master” to another. It would do good for both China and the US to lose their soft power and have a more level shift of independence among nations.

[-] NonconfrontationaI@lemmy.ml -4 points 15 hours ago

I disagree, obviously.

this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2026
273 points (96.6% liked)

Technology

88710 readers
3657 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS