that just shows that china was investing in infrastructure, while US was investing in corruption to funnel more money to the people who need it the least.
I was referring to whataboutism broadly, and not necessarily in this instance.
that just shows that china was investing in infrastructure, while US was investing in corruption to funnel more money to the people who need it the least.
Right, i agree with you, but who was saying otherwise is my point. That’s why i said this is a strawman. “China bad” comments are due to other factors and not infrastructure. This post addresses the China bad comments with “but look at how developed the infrastructure is” whilst the comments are about completely separate things.
If those “other factors” were legitimate why would china be investing anything into infrastructure? If they could simply unilaterally repress discontent, why would they invest so heavily in the experience of their working class? Doesn’t that imply a huge impossible level of benevolence, in your version of events, to do these things with absolutely no mechanism for the people to enforce it?
“Whataboutism” is a thought-terminating buzzword employed by brain-rotted westerners whenever a relevant comparison is made in which they come out looking bad
Tu quoque is a real fallacy, whataboutism is a word used by people who are too fucking stupid to google the real name and are 100% always also too stupid to correctly identify a fallacy
Your point has no validity as several other users have already explained at length, my point is that you’re also rhetorically/logically/literally illiterate and should be embarassed
several other users have already explained at length
You mean communists like you? We’re so deep in this thread that no one else other than you guys care enough to be still here downvoting my comments.
Similarly you’ve been insulting me this whole time, but I’ve stayed passive, only wanting to engage with your talking points. Maybe you could try being less aggressive for a change.
I can’t think of any strawman arguments I’ve seen recently from leftists, but as for “whataboutism,” comparison is the basic method by which we can observe what works and what doesn’t. Not all “whataboutism” is invalid, for example comparing the level of infrastructure development in China and the US reveals clear strengths of socialism over capitalism.
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.
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?
That’s not what i said. I don’t think you actually addressed what i said. I only said this post is a strawman, because OP is trying to frame it like most criticisms of China are based on infrastructure as opposed to other things.
The fact that you don’t like how my argument reflected yours does not mean it isn’t valid.
Exactly right. I don’t have a problem with this argument. It is valid. China has better infrastructure than the US, but that’s not what the “China bad” discourse is about. It’s really more of ignoratio elenchi.
And post isn’t about debunking your racist disinformation. This post is about talking about good things.
Then it should’ve been more specific in its title instead of reducing the whole discourse to a point that most people dont debate on. The post’s title makes it seem like it has solved the whole “China bad argument” when there’such more to it than infrastructure. I have already conceded to you that i agree with the post. China invests properly and is economically far ahead of its contemporaries.
I think you broadly understand what I’m saying but you just want to keep arguing because you don’t want to reach common ground with a “dumb stupid liberal”.
I said in another comment that if OP was making this post as a response to another person where they were talking about infrastructure, then this post is fine. But if they’re generalizing “China bad” comments and the only response is “infrastructure”, then it’s a straw man, because arguments about infrastructure development doesn’t make up the bulk of “China bad” discourse.
To make it more clear, let me give an example. If i say China is “bad” because it censors media, and you respond by saying “ok, but look at the difference between infrastructure in the US and China—China’s is far better”, you have strawmanned my position because i wasn’t talking about infrastructure.
This post strawmans the whole “China bad” discourse because it makes it seem like it’s about infrastructure. I hope this makes more sense.
There’s no need for you to tediously restate your position. I understand where you’re coming from. You cannot enlighten me to your perspective as a way of making your argument seem less stupid to me.
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.
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.
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.
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%:
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
Seems like the only thing you guys do here is strawman and “whatabout”
where either of those things here?
that just shows that china was investing in infrastructure, while US was investing in corruption to funnel more money to the people who need it the least.
I was referring to whataboutism broadly, and not necessarily in this instance.
Right, i agree with you, but who was saying otherwise is my point. That’s why i said this is a strawman. “China bad” comments are due to other factors and not infrastructure. This post addresses the China bad comments with “but look at how developed the infrastructure is” whilst the comments are about completely separate things.
If those “other factors” were legitimate why would china be investing anything into infrastructure? If they could simply unilaterally repress discontent, why would they invest so heavily in the experience of their working class? Doesn’t that imply a
hugeimpossible level of benevolence, in your version of events, to do these things with absolutely no mechanism for the people to enforce it?“Whataboutism” is a thought-terminating buzzword employed by brain-rotted westerners whenever a relevant comparison is made in which they come out looking bad
Whataboutism is a real fallacy
Tu quoque is a real fallacy, whataboutism is a word used by people who are too fucking stupid to google the real name and are 100% always also too stupid to correctly identify a fallacy
So what exactly is wrong if someone wants to use a colloquial? You’re acting like this has any actual bearing on the validity of my point
Your point has no validity as several other users have already explained at length, my point is that you’re also rhetorically/logically/literally illiterate and should be embarassed
You mean communists like you? We’re so deep in this thread that no one else other than you guys care enough to be still here downvoting my comments.
Similarly you’ve been insulting me this whole time, but I’ve stayed passive, only wanting to engage with your talking points. Maybe you could try being less aggressive for a change.
Yes, several communists have already explained to you in great detail exactly how and why your assertions are incorrect. Your point?
Your passivity is worthless.
Hmm, now let’s see how a Trump supporter would say their version of this:
Yes, several fascists have already explained to you in great detail exactly how and why your assertions are incorrect.
Doesn’t sound as sexy now does it?
No, it was invented by br*tish mass murderers.
I can’t think of any strawman arguments I’ve seen recently from leftists, but as for “whataboutism,” comparison is the basic method by which we can observe what works and what doesn’t. Not all “whataboutism” is invalid, 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”
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.
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?
That’s not what i said. I don’t think you actually addressed what i said. I only said this post is a strawman, because OP is trying to frame it like most criticisms of China are based on infrastructure as opposed to other things.
This argument is completely fine otherwise
Thinking people are only allowed to respond to what you say on your own terms is baby brained
Just like I’m trying to frame most criticisms of strawberries as based on flavor.
The fact that you don’t like how my argument reflected yours does not mean it isn’t valid.
Exactly right. I don’t have a problem with this argument. It is valid. China has better infrastructure than the US, but that’s not what the “China bad” discourse is about. It’s really more of ignoratio elenchi.
And post isn’t about debunking your racist disinformation. This post is about talking about good things.
Are you under the impression that you’re only allowed to talk about bad things when discussing whether something is good or bad?
Then it should’ve been more specific in its title instead of reducing the whole discourse to a point that most people dont debate on. The post’s title makes it seem like it has solved the whole “China bad argument” when there’such more to it than infrastructure. I have already conceded to you that i agree with the post. China invests properly and is economically far ahead of its contemporaries.
I think you broadly understand what I’m saying but you just want to keep arguing because you don’t want to reach common ground with a “dumb stupid liberal”.
Sorry? I don’t follow.
I said in another comment that if OP was making this post as a response to another person where they were talking about infrastructure, then this post is fine. But if they’re generalizing “China bad” comments and the only response is “infrastructure”, then it’s a straw man, because arguments about infrastructure development doesn’t make up the bulk of “China bad” discourse.
To make it more clear, let me give an example. If i say China is “bad” because it censors media, and you respond by saying “ok, but look at the difference between infrastructure in the US and China—China’s is far better”, you have strawmanned my position because i wasn’t talking about infrastructure.
This post strawmans the whole “China bad” discourse because it makes it seem like it’s about infrastructure. I hope this makes more sense.
There’s no need for you to tediously restate your position. I understand where you’re coming from. You cannot enlighten me to your perspective as a way of making your argument seem less stupid to me.
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.
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.
Sorry, if you’re meaning this as a defense of the use of whataboutism, I don’t agree.
And when we do this, as we have and continue to do, you’ll still label it as whataboutism.
I’m not ready to have this discussion today
Then why say anything rather than read/watch provided material?
Have you not been reading my comments?
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%:
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
You came here fighting strawmen then, ironically.
Sorry how so?