So why the whataboutism is response? Obviously you don't want to talk about what the North was doing from 1946 to 1956, in the North.l, but really want to talk about the South.
Why is that?
Multiple times in this thread, someone has made the reasonable argument that lack of legitimacy was a big role in failure of South Vietnam, and every time you engaged in whataboutism by pointing to the murder of landlords, dissidents, and Catholics by North Vietnam. When I point out that there was also much of the very same failings in the South, you hide behind the shield of "whataboutism" and now seem to be intent on insisting I am... ignoring the crimes of North Vietnam??
I have no problem discussing the graves at Hue and the murder of Catholics and such as you've described, I haven't disputed anything you've said about it..
Every time someone has brought up violence and repression in the South, you've tried to deflect it to the North (and even when a user tried to explain they wasn't defending the excesses/murder, you literally accused them of crocodile tears with absolutely zero basis), so please excuse me if I am not exactly sympathetic to your arguments here. It's pretty blatantly obvious that you are just intent on pushing atrocities on one side to the forefront of the discussion in order to demonize the actions of North Vietnam and thus legitimize the South, while essentially refusing to acknowledge many of the violence and issues that led to lack of legitimacy in South Vietnam too. It's only further transparent with the political soapboxing with the weird strawman statements about what "Marxists say.." about the Venezuelan economic situation and... posting pictures of Cuban groceries? and other such things that have no relevance to the thread whatsoever.
I am taking issue with the cheerleading for South Vietnam and trying to make atrocities into winning an argument while at the same time managing to dodge and questions about the exact same repression and murder taking place in South Vietnam that was taking place in the North.
To make a parallel: "Obviously you don't want to talk about what the South was doing, in the South, but really want to talk about the North." It's pretty classic to just scream "logical fallacy" and then imply the person you are arguing with isn't acting in good faith and/or is somehow in support of some abstract other... You didn't even manage to address anything I said, you just quoted the first line, cried whataboutism again, and ignored everything else.
Last edited: