This applies to the context of west vs China. Everything China does is because of oppression and everything the west does is because of democracy and protecting you.
There's a fair bit of nuance in this topic, but it can be argued that a totalitarian regime whose primary interest is remaining in power will resort to more oppressive measures towards its citizens than one that at least has some semblance of respecting human rights and democratic processes. This doesn't mean that there aren't things to praise and criticize about both sides, but _overall_ one system of government is demonstrably more benevolent, to its own citizens, at least.
What I'm really tired of, though, is everytime there's news about something worth criticizing about China, these comparisons with the West are mentioned. It only serves to muddle the conversation, which can be seen as the intent of whoever brings it up.
We should be an absolute beacon of morality and principles with a stellar track record to criticise (or even, instill change through violence in) in other countries. That is not the case yet, so let's work on that.
I completely disagree. We can have many problems but when another country, say, invades another one, we should respond appropriately. Waiting until everybody becomes crystal will never work because it's never going to happen.
> (or even, instill change through violence in)
This is a completely different issue, and it is always wrong, no matter who does it, whether it's CIA in South America or Putin's agents in Ukraine. I haven't seen a single case where "instilling change through violence" brought any benefit, but I saw several cases where it completely ruined whole countries, see the so-called Arab spring.
The American Revolution? The Civil War?
They do this because this is the most efficient strategy that works every time - not just in Internet discussions but also in political debate. Look what happens whenever any of atrocities committed by Russia hits the news again - you can be 100% sure that one of the first comments will be something about the USA bombing Sarayevo or Syria etc. Some of these accusations do make sense (like the invasion of Iraq on false premises), some don't (like in Yugoslavia where NATO pretty much stopped the war and "ethnic cleansing" i.e. mass murder). But it doesn't matter: the person who threw the bait have successfully managed to deter the conversation away from the problematic issue and made it someone else's problem.
It's stunning to see how many so-called liberals nowadays have little in common with the liberals of the 2000s, sometimes even the complete opposite. I recall standing against censorship, governmental abuse, american imperialism, and many other values to be firmly entrenched in the liberal camp when I was coming-of-age politically speaking back in the US.