> referring to the sentence "just wait till you see what China is going to do"

It is hard to believe you didn't understand this phrase, but just in case I'll explain. It means "if China had been the dominating power to the measure the US is, their abuses would be much more massive than whatever abuses US has done or is accused of. And if China will achieve such dominant position, we will have the misfortune of experiencing this abuse". The validity of this statement can be confirmed by looking into past and present abuses by Chinese government, and concluding that if that government becomes as powerful and dominant as US government is now, it's lust for human rights abuses is not likely to diminish.

Thus, we are not comparing present to the future. We are comparing the level of dominance and level of abusiveness at the same level of dominance, while assuming that more dominance would allow the government to be more abusive to more people.

> It is hard to believe you didn't understand this phrase, but just in case I'll explain. It means "if China had been the dominating power to the measure the US is, their abuses would be much more massive than whatever abuses US has done or is accused of. And if China will achieve such dominant position, we will have the misfortune of experiencing this abuse".

I understood the phrase completely. The OP's original sentence is very unambiguous. My interpretation, or re-phrasing of it is:

> If you think America is bad right now, wait till you see what China is going to do in the future.

It's a very clear comparison of America's present abuses to China's future potential ones. As I have said many times already, that is not a fair comparison. One can compare America's past or present abuses to China's past or present abuses. One cannot make a comparison based on future abuses, unless one is a time traveller or has possession of a crystal ball. I'm actually very surprised that this is such a point of contention.

> The validity of this statement can be confirmed by looking into past and present abuses by Chinese government, and concluding that if that government becomes as powerful and dominant as US government is now, it's lust for human rights abuses is not likely to diminish.

> We are comparing the level of dominance and level of abusiveness at the same level of dominance, while assuming that more dominance would allow the government to be more abusive to more people.

I'm not sure that the OP speaks with the same voice as you do. Regardless, to repeat the point again, you are condemning China for future, hypothetical abuses it will possibly carry out as a possible future world hegemon based on past and present actions.

The assumption is invalid because they are based on the premise that countries are static and do not evolve over time. You're saying because a country has done X and is doing Y, it will continue to do so in the future. History trivially shows this to be untrue. If you follow that train of thought, there will never be enough countries in the world for you to condemn.

Anyways, I feel like this conversation is not very productive and we're not supposed to engage in political battles, so I will end this thread here.

> I understood the phrase completely.

No, you didn't. I assume English is not your native tongue (it's ok, it's not mine either), but after I explained it to you I don't think it makes sense to keep purposefully misunderstanding it.

> you are condemning China for future, hypothetical abuses it will possibly carry out as a possible future world hegemon based on past and present actions.

Nope. I am condemning China for past and present abuse, and tell you that if China had chance to dominate, this abuse would increase orders of magnitude. Exactly because China is abusive right now. It's not some hypothetical guess about the future, it's the fact. Just as I can predict what happens if I drop a stone - it will fall to the ground, due to gravity, and the laws of gravity is not something hypothetical in the future - it has been long established and this is what allows me to make predictions - I can also predict what would happen with China exactly because I know present and past of China. You are trying to pretend it's some play of imagination that has no connection to facts. It is the opposite.

> You're saying because a country has done X and is doing Y, it will continue to do so in the future. History trivially shows this to be untrue

If history trivially shows that, it wouldn't be hard for you to show three examples of totalitarian states that voluntarily stopped being totalitarian while their dominance was on the raise.

I meant to compare a hypothetical continued American hegemony to a hypothetical future Chinese hegemony. It's hard to condense that along with other concepts into a brief post.

But I think that hypothetical, to the degree any hypothetical can be, is fairly valid. For example, at this moment, one side supports North Korea the other South Korea.

Totalitarianism is a scorpion that cannot but sting.

So no, in my books that's just suicidal playing for time I have no patience for and will take no part in.

> it will reach a point where its government will no longer feel the need to resort to totalitarian policies to ensure the stability and prosperity of its society

Do you have an example from history of a totalitarian society voluntarily undergoing such transformation?

There are many, many such examples in history which you are free to spend time reading about. At the moment, I am not particularly inclined to research and type up a report for your personal consumption. I hope you understand.

Yet, you - with all the massive reading you have already done - failed to name even one. I understand completely.