• GrammarPolice@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    2 个月前

    for example comparing the level of infrastructure development in China and the US reveals clear strengths of socialism over capitalism.

    That’s not whataboutism. That’s just a comparison as you pointed out. Whataboutism is when you address a critique of your position by saying, “we’re not the only ones though”

    I can’t think of any strawman arguments I’ve seen recently from leftists

    This post is a strawman. It assumes criticisms of China are centred around infrastructure as opposed to other things. Unless OP specifically made this post in response to someone they had (or are having) a discussion with, I see no reason to generalize this as a position all “liberals” take.

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 个月前

      This post is definitely comparison, though, and not whataboutism. Further, it is valid if the point of critiquing something is to imply something else is better when it can be pointed out that they are similar, the same, or the other is worse.

      As for this post, it’s pretty clear that it’s comparing infrastructure in both countries. Claims of “China bad” are ever-shifting, goal posts moving and entire arguments spring up and fall back down, there’s no meme that could genuinely address all of them. Use Occam’s razor a bit here.

      • GrammarPolice@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        2 个月前

        Claims of “China bad” are ever-shifting, goal posts moving and entire arguments spring up and fall back down,

        Right, but infrastructure is not what makes up the bulk of “China bad” talking points. Why not address the Uyghurs or censorship? That is what makes up the bulk of “China bad” discourse.

        Pointing to infrastructure only to refute the “China bad” comments is a strawman because that’s not what makes up the bulk of the discourse.

        I’m willing to let it slide on the Occam’s razor though, especially since this is just a meme, but it still feels disingenuous.

        Further, it is valid if the point of critiquing something is to imply something else is better when it can be pointed out that they are similar, the same, or the other is worse.

        Sorry, if you’re meaning this as a defense of the use of whataboutism, I don’t agree.

        • Dessalines@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          2 个月前

          Why not address the Uyghurs or censorship?

          And when we do this, as we have and continue to do, you’ll still label it as whataboutism.

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 个月前

          The problem is that “China bad” means anything, so we have to take it at face-value and look at the meme itself for context. It isn’t addressing whatever niche reason you have for not liking China.

          As for Xinjiang, the best and most comprehensive resource I have seen so far is Qiao Collective’s Xinjiang: A Resource and Report Compilation. Qiao Collective is explicitly pro-PRC, but this is an extremely comprehensive write-up of the entire background of the events, the timeline of reports, and real and fake claims.

          I also recommend reading the UN report and China’s response to it. These are the most relevant accusations and responses without delving into straight up fantasy like Adrian Zenz, professional propagandist for the Victims of Communism Foundation, does.

          Tourists do go to Xinjiang all the time as well. You can watch videos like this one on YouTube, though it obviously isn’t going to be a comprehensive view of a complex situation like this.

          As for censorship, it’s largely used against capitalists and western orgs. The working class in China need to keep capitalists suppressed or they risk the socialist system. This is working, and China has high degrees of support, over 90%:

          • GrammarPolice@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            2 个月前

            It isn’t addressing whatever niche reason you have for not liking China.

            That is why i said if OP is responding to someone in particular where this was the topic of discussion, then it’s fine. The meme should’ve been more careful in its language and specified what aspects of the “China bad” discourse it’s addressing. Something like “But they say US has better infrastructure”, or something to that tune. This way, it wouldn’t reduce the whole discourse to a singular and unpopular talking point.

            I’m not going to address your other points as it’s going to make this discussion longer than i want it. Save that for another day

                • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  ·
                  2 个月前

                  You complained about everyone doing “whataboutism” or strawmanning, but your entire premise rests on OP not just making a comparison meme, but specifically addressing someone making an argument that doesn’t have to do with infrastructure. It’s an utter non-sequitor, it’s just a meme comparing infrastructure, OP isn’t answering any one person nor is OP saying their meme answers every argument.

                  You strawmanned OP.

                  • GrammarPolice@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    arrow-down
                    6
                    ·
                    2 个月前

                    nor is OP saying their meme answers every argument.

                    OP inadvertently does so with the title.

                    Imagine if i made a similar meme, comparing the poverty rates in the US (which is like anywhere from 10-15% living below the poverty line) to the poverty rates in Cuba (which is like 40-80% depending on what sources or definitions we’re using) and i said, “But apparently, tHe uS BaDDDDD”. For time’s sake, let’s not get into the nitty gritty of why this may be the case. Wouldn’t you say something like, “that’s not why we criticise the US though”, or “that’s not what the ‘US bad’ discourse is about”?

                    Wouldn’t it feel disingenuous that I’ve reduced the whole discussion on whether the US/Capitalism is bad to poverty rates?

    • AntiOutsideAktion@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 个月前

      So it’s called a strawman when you disagree with someone and your reason for thinking something is good is different from the reason someone else thinks something is bad?

      I think strawberries are good because they are sweet. You think strawberries are bad because the little seeds bother you.

      Have I committed a strawman because I didn’t talk about the little seeds when I said strawberries are good?