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.

[+] GrammarPolice@lemmy.world -13 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 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.

[–] dessalines@lemmy.ml 19 points 2 weeks ago (1 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.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 13 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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%:

[+] GrammarPolice@lemmy.world -7 points 2 weeks ago (1 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

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 17 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

You came here fighting strawmen then, ironically.

[–] GrammarPolice@lemmy.world -4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Sorry how so?

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 15 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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 -7 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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@lemmy.ml 10 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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.