• GrammarPolice@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    22 hours ago

    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
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          21 hours ago

          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
            2
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            21 hours ago

            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?

            • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              21 hours ago

              No, because the reasons for why China is doing well with infrastructure and the US is doing poorly with it are straightforward. With poverty rates, you can examine other factors like the embargo, as well as look at the great achievements of Cuba despite it all like high life expectancy. The infrastructure is clear-cut, it’s because the US has a poor economic system and is a dying empire.

              • GrammarPolice@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                6
                ·
                21 hours 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