Careful there. You might get banned in violation of rule 2. Whatever the hell that rule is

Removed by mod

You are relentless aren’t you

Have you not been reading my comments?

Losing? I’ve given up on good faith argument. Y’all are clearly not in favour.

Yeah well watch me swap some words out of your sentence for

I only replaced one word. Guess you’re not so bright either😆

Yes, several communists have already explained to you in great detail exactly how and why your assertions are incorrect.

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?

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.aybe you could try being less aggressive for a change.

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

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

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?

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’m not ready to have this discussion today

Sorry how so?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.