you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -12 points 1 year ago (19 children)

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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [+] 11 points 1 year ago (10 children)
  • [+] -10 points 1 year ago* (9 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] -9 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I'm not ready to have this discussion today

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Then why say anything rather than read/watch provided material?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 10 points 1 year ago (4 children)
  • [–] -5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 13 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [+] 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [+] -6 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 7 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [+] -6 points 1 year ago

    So if you saw a post similar to the example i gave, it would not seem disingenuous to reduce the whole US argument to one talking point which may or may not even be a popular one?

    You have to realize that what this OP did can also be done in favour of pro-US/pro-capitalism rhetoric. You just have to

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [+] -10 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago* (6 children)

    Thinking people are only allowed to respond to what you say on your own terms is baby brained

    because OP is trying to frame it like most criticisms of China are based on infrastructure as opposed to other things.

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    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 the 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    but that’s not what the “China bad” discourse is about

    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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    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".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    I have explicitly stated that you are wrong and explained why. Now you're trying to psychoanalyze the fact that I'm not moving from my position for vague social pressure related reasons?

    You have the brain of a baby.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -9 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)