No, you're confused about these things. The "soft power" that was being argued is in media, etc... making people think your culture is cool, thus pulling thier punches and softening their approach towards you even when they have clashing interests with you. That was and still is nonsense. Here, you 2 are presenting the argument that China can act like a tyrant and a monster but that won't matter because others have no sense of right and wrong. No; that is nothing about "soft power" but the very normal and human desire to NOT be ruled over and likely bullied by a tyrant. It's tangible and demonstrable, seen in all revolts and rebellions in history, not at all like the unprecedented "soft power" concept of basically victory-by-coolness that was argued.
Wow, hell yeah, you got it right away. Do you know how many people struggle to understand that? Like 25 messages back and forth of my explaining the concept of nonviolent extensions of hard power (via technology, trade, finance etc...) and derps are still going, "But what are you gonna do? Bomb them? No, so you need soft power!"