It’s a bad take either way, and that interpretation makes way less sense. The reason we don’t collaborate with China is geopolitical, and has nothing to do with ethics or China being too inhumane to effectively collaborate with (whatever that means).

You don’t at all see how that implies moral superiority? Or are you just giving them the benefit of the doubt?

The problem is holding China to a higher standard than we hold ourselves to.

They weren’t just asking China to be more humane, though. They were suggesting that China doesn’t deserve our cooperation because they are inhumane, which implies we have the moral high ground and is explicitly hypocritical. It isn’t whataboutism to point out hypocrisy.

Is the argument here that China isn’t worthy of the United States’ cooperation? We here in the US need to get over ourselves and stop acting as if we have the moral high ground over everyone else. There are a lot of things about the US that are far from humane, and we do cooperate with countries that engage in far worse, often on our behalf. Our adversarial disposition towards China has nothing to do with human rights and everything to do with geopolitics.

That’s because it’s exaggerated, and the kids play into it rather than cringing and moving on like you might have when you were a kid and adults tried using your slang. The reason is that unlike previous generations, gen Z has incorporated it into youth culture as a result of the current state of the internet and has a name to call it by: brainrot.

Key word here is “infinitesimally.” Of course if you’re calculating the odds of hitting something infinitesimally small you’re going to get 0. That’s just the nature of infinities. It is impossible to hit an infinitesimally small point, but that’s not what a human considers to be a “perfect bullseye.” There’s no paradox here.