26
submitted 1 month ago by yogthos@lemmy.ml to c/socialism@lemmy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml -2 points 1 month ago

the map is far more accurate than it is not though

[-] GarbageShoot@hexbear.net 25 points 1 month ago

the map is far more accurate than it is not though

Come on, Yog, we can hold ourselves to a higher standard than this. It'd be so easy to just color in Vietnam and then you'd be set, but by posting it in its current form you are actively lying.

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml -2 points 1 month ago

I think there's a difference between invasion/occupation and a minor border skirmish. Like yeah it could've been more accurate, but it does get the point across. ๐Ÿคท

[-] GarbageShoot@hexbear.net 9 points 1 month ago

If I was just complaining about border skirmishes, then I'd mention India or something. The attack on Vietnam was more than just a "minor border skirmish".

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 month ago

Well, feel free to explain how the attack on Vietnam constitutes an occupation. Are you suggesting China's military action was carried out with the intent of annexing a part of Vietnam?

[-] GarbageShoot@hexbear.net 7 points 1 month ago

Come on, you're more well-read than this. You know that military occupation and annexation are not the same thing.

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago

You still haven't answered what you think the intent of the military action was. Do you claim any military confrontation is occupation?

[-] GarbageShoot@hexbear.net 6 points 1 month ago

I'd more say that the military occupation was done for the sake of confrontation (this is similar to the official Chinese line). It was a really senseless invasion, as far as I can tell (and I disagree with the Vietnamese line that the war was expansionist).

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 month ago

I think we can agree on that

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 18 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Eh, I think you can illustrate your point a bit better, comrade. The map goes from good agitprop to bad when it is counterable by liberals and leftists alike. I agree with your general point on this post, so I don't think the point itself is bad, but it could be better elaborated on with an actual map that shows what it says it does. Just my opinion.

[-] Vampire@hexbear.net 16 points 1 month ago

The top one is taken from a website called vividmaps where it's countries the USA has had some sort of conflict with

List of wars being involved in is not a list of countries being invaded and occupied, nice try though.

The bottom map is just a white map.

Garbage meme 1/5

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 month ago

Yep, it's pretty bad for agitprop, even if I agree that the PRC has had really peaceful development all things considered, and the US is a genocidal empire, this map gets in the way of that messaging.

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 month ago

That's fair, I like the concept of the map hence why I shared it, but I agree it would be better if it was more accurate. Perhaps worth making a better one.

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 month ago

I think that's a good idea! Reality speaks for itself, showing reality is the best agitprop.

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 month ago

I agree, and it is true that whenever agitprop has even minor inaccuracies then that's the only thing people will fixate on.

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 month ago
[-] redrumBot@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 month ago

I agree, also it misses the colonial expansion of the original USA (13 small States in the East Coast), the USA should be red

[-] Vampire@hexbear.net 12 points 1 month ago

One ๐Ÿ˜‚๐Ÿ˜‚๐Ÿ˜‚ bit is the way it even uses a purer shade of white for China.

this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2024
26 points (60.3% liked)

Socialism

5184 readers
20 users here now

Rules TBD.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS