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.