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.
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.
“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.
Seems like the only thing you guys do here is strawman and “whatabout”
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.
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?
“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?