this post was submitted on 11 Nov 2023
450 points (94.5% liked)
World News
32316 readers
982 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The idea of a consolidated imperial core is in itself flawed and the idea itself is not applicable to all situations. Though definitely a useful point of view sometimes, using it unconditionally will only deny nuance and differences between core countries, which is not always helpful.
EDIT: Guessing this will probably get downvoted and/or ignored, but if anyone is actually willing to provide or cite some justification/explanation of the map in question, that would be great. Linking the Wikipedia article, whose map differs and has the reasoning of core countries as
containing several points, which in total are inconsistent by leading to a false dichotomy, is not what I ask and not what I think a map of imperial core states should use for classification.
My reasoning for calling a consolidated core flawed is among other things because it is not taking into consideration the historic development and relationships between core states. Some classify, for example, Scotland as a semi-core due to these reasons.
https://lemmygrad.ml/c/alwaysthesamemap
lots of examples of what this map emoji means here
I particularly like this one of the countries that recognize Palestine, which is the inverse of the 'same map'.
https://lemmygrad.ml/pictrs/image/f8d50ef2-6638-43e2-86e6-d1ece0d35add.png
No, this is not an explanation. For something as important as the imperial core, which you claim the map portrays, there needs to be an actual proper definition and reasoning behind it. Having a bunch of loosely corrolated maps is not it. The list of countries that recognize Palestine is also not a proper inverse.
I am just tired of seeing this map spammed. Once some even ridiculed others for not acknowledgeding it as the de facto definition of imperial core. I think this is especially bad due to having yet to see anyone actually putting any effort into analysis of why it looks like it does. Spewing unsubstantiated ideas is for the incoherent bourgeoisie and fascists.
No each map is explained on that comm. You assigning it 'imperial core' and asking for an explanation is some JAQing off sealioning imo. Theses maps correlate how interests of countries align around various issues, and the 'same map' comes up a lot because of how these same countries often agree on things in contrast to the the rest of the world. It's not some socio-political theory, it's just the reality of how these countries align into blocs that correlate with maintaining the current US hegemonic status quo.
The two maps that really 'explained' this concept for me were the map of countries that 'condemn China's treatment of Uyghur Muslims' contrasted with the map of 'countries that recognize Palestine'. It shows how this bloc of countries want to demonize China while supporting the ongoing genocide of Palestine's indigenous peoples. The principles they espouse are unmasked in the light of the truth of this comparison.
Saying I am sealioning is an accusation and not an opinion besides also being wrong. Here is one in return: Acting like the map is not usually considered to portray the imperial core is intellectual dishonesty on your part.
Whotf talks like this anyway?
First you accuse me of sealioning and then you hide behind an "imo" like that is just your opinion. There is no such relativistic position on an objective matter. You are wrong to claim so and cowardly for disguising it as an opinion. With this in mind it does not surprise me that you stoop even lower with trying to berate me for my style of writing. Who tf acts like that?
I gave you a perfectly reasonable explanation of what the same map means. You refuse to accept it and write like this. Disengage.