this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2024
25 points (60.5% liked)

Socialism

5124 readers
167 users here now

Rules TBD.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Vampire@hexbear.net 16 points 1 day ago (1 children)

See? You could have said that instead of posting falsified maps

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 day ago (3 children)

the map is far more accurate than it is not though

[–] GarbageShoot@hexbear.net 25 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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 -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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. 🤷

[–] GarbageShoot@hexbear.net 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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 day ago (1 children)

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 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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 day ago (1 children)

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 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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 3 points 22 hours ago

I think we can agree on that

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 15 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

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 14 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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 9 points 1 day 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 day ago (2 children)

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.

[–] redrumBot@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 day 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

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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 5 points 1 day ago
[–] Vampire@hexbear.net 12 points 1 day ago

One 😂😂😂 bit is the way it even uses a purer shade of white for China.