186
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 30 Sep 2025
186 points (73.0% liked)
Memes
52661 readers
309 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
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 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.
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".
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.
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?
Goddamn you're dumb
You are relentless aren't you
Yep!
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?
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.
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?
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.
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
You did nothing to add to the post other than gesture at fallacies that don't apply.