▲ 632 ▼ Which Countries Are In The World Health Organization (thelemmy.club) submitted 7 months ago by ooli3@sopuli.xyz to c/map_enthusiasts@sopuli.xyz 75 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] Mac@mander.xyz 1 point 7 months ago (3 children) Why is Greenland shaded green? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] blitzen@lemmy.ca 1 point 7 months ago (2 children) I’d accept Demark being in WHO. Puerto Rico? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Mac@mander.xyz 2 points 7 months ago (1 child) Yes, please do accept your own conflicting examples. This was never a serious debate. I was meming about your wording (hence my "lol") and you got offended. There's much more nuance here, as everyone knows. PR is still an unincorporated territory in comparison to California, and was invited to join on their own. But you can continue this debate with someone else, if you want, that was never my intent. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] blitzen@lemmy.ca 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) If anyone is offended, it’s the person who took this conversation as “rude.” Point is, unincorporated territory, country, state, autonomous territory, etc are just legal definitions of regions. And the purpose of the map is to show participating regions. Depending too much on the literal definition of country misses the point of the map (unless the point is the shit on the US, something I would fully agree we are deserving of.) I would certainly understand a modified green/red stripe color to indicate the California participates but is part of a country that doesn’t. That feels honest and in the spirit of the map, dismissing California wholly doesn’t. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] blitzen@lemmy.ca 1 point 7 months ago (2 children) I’d accept Demark being in WHO. Puerto Rico? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Mac@mander.xyz 2 points 7 months ago (1 child) Yes, please do accept your own conflicting examples. This was never a serious debate. I was meming about your wording (hence my "lol") and you got offended. There's much more nuance here, as everyone knows. PR is still an unincorporated territory in comparison to California, and was invited to join on their own. But you can continue this debate with someone else, if you want, that was never my intent. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] blitzen@lemmy.ca 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) If anyone is offended, it’s the person who took this conversation as “rude.” Point is, unincorporated territory, country, state, autonomous territory, etc are just legal definitions of regions. And the purpose of the map is to show participating regions. Depending too much on the literal definition of country misses the point of the map (unless the point is the shit on the US, something I would fully agree we are deserving of.) I would certainly understand a modified green/red stripe color to indicate the California participates but is part of a country that doesn’t. That feels honest and in the spirit of the map, dismissing California wholly doesn’t. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Mac@mander.xyz 2 points 7 months ago (1 child) Yes, please do accept your own conflicting examples. This was never a serious debate. I was meming about your wording (hence my "lol") and you got offended. There's much more nuance here, as everyone knows. PR is still an unincorporated territory in comparison to California, and was invited to join on their own. But you can continue this debate with someone else, if you want, that was never my intent. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] blitzen@lemmy.ca 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) If anyone is offended, it’s the person who took this conversation as “rude.” Point is, unincorporated territory, country, state, autonomous territory, etc are just legal definitions of regions. And the purpose of the map is to show participating regions. Depending too much on the literal definition of country misses the point of the map (unless the point is the shit on the US, something I would fully agree we are deserving of.) I would certainly understand a modified green/red stripe color to indicate the California participates but is part of a country that doesn’t. That feels honest and in the spirit of the map, dismissing California wholly doesn’t. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] blitzen@lemmy.ca 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) If anyone is offended, it’s the person who took this conversation as “rude.” Point is, unincorporated territory, country, state, autonomous territory, etc are just legal definitions of regions. And the purpose of the map is to show participating regions. Depending too much on the literal definition of country misses the point of the map (unless the point is the shit on the US, something I would fully agree we are deserving of.) I would certainly understand a modified green/red stripe color to indicate the California participates but is part of a country that doesn’t. That feels honest and in the spirit of the map, dismissing California wholly doesn’t. permalink fedilink source parent
