▲ 562 ▼ Amerikkka land of the jailed (But China is defo AuThOrITarIAn!!) (lemmy.ml) submitted 1 year ago by Smackyroon@lemmy.ml to c/memes@lemmy.ml 207 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 14 points 1 year ago (38 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 38 child comments replies: [+] yucandu@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (3 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 year ago (3 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Micromot@piefed.social 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children) What would be a source you deem valid in this case. The only thing I can say is that multiple news sources published about this topic. And what do you have to say about the problem of half-assed building projects that keep killing people in china because they used the wrong type of sand for concrete for example? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (2 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Micromot@piefed.social 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Do you have more information on what the specific banking error was, because most sources I was able to find are focused on the violent intervention and less about what exactly happened in the banks. If not, the incident doesn’t make china as bad or worse than the us but it does make the perfect image of the chinese government seem a bit more questionable. Also, what do you think about the issue of things like tofu dreg construction? Why do you think that happens or did it even happen as shown on multiple videos from chine? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Micromot@piefed.social 2 points 1 year ago Alright, I think tofu-dregs are mostly an issue that happened at a scale once and the reporting is mostly happening as the broken buildings are showing up. I could imagine the issue that caused this has been worked on by now permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) [–] syzygy@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago Can you please provide a source for the graphic? permalink fedilink source parent [–] AnarchoEngineer@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 1 year ago (12 children) Meta argument: charts like this are basically useless. I was raised in a very religious town. If you asked, the people in that town would say “my religion is a religion of love” “people should be as free as possible because it’s an extension of personal agency” and all the while they beat their kids and would rather die than let gay or trans people be themselves. They can quote the scriptures and could likely write some pretty strong rhetoric implying they are loving and kind and caring, but it wouldn’t be anywhere near the truth. Point is that just because you get phrases pounded into your head doesn’t mean you truly believe them or even know what they imply. If your country’s rhetoric specifically states that the government serves the people and says it over and over, regardless of the truth of that statement, people will have a tendency to select it. (Like if your government called itself the people’s republic…) If you asked Americans and Chinese if they think personal freedom is important, you’d likely get the reverse pattern in your graph. Is this because America has more freedom? No, more likely it’s because the historical rhetoric we get exposed to emphasizes “freedom” whereas China’s revolutionary rhetoric was centered around “democracy” If you asked Americans if they support socialism, you’d get lower bars than if you asked it indirectly. Just using the word socialism skews your metric. People will say they support or don’t support concepts they don’t understand, or that they view in a different light than others. Does democracy mean more than two political parties? Does democracy mean no capitalism? Does democracy require freedom to spread information freely? Etc. So once again these metrics are useless because I’d imagine most of these countries’ voters would disagree on what the statements even mean. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 20 points 1 year ago (12 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] AnarchoEngineer@lemmy.dbzer0.com -4 points 1 year ago (11 children) Why would that have any effect on the point of my argument? My point is about the ineffectiveness and unscientific nature of this kind of questionnaire. Doesn’t matter what topics or debates these are used in or who is right in those debates; the point is that these kind of charts are useless regardless of their content. Sidenote: if you had “various metrics” why’d you post the least scientific one? Like bro, brain-dead “libertarians” could probably pull out some statistic or study that is more sound than this chart to support their idiotic bullshit. If a fellow anarchist tried to use a metric like this I’d call them out too even if I agreed with their point permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 15 points 1 year ago (11 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] AnarchoEngineer@lemmy.dbzer0.com -4 points 1 year ago (10 children) The only thing the questionnaire does, assuming it is built well, is show that when asked those questions people in different countries answered differently. Did the Chinese populations sampled by the study respond more positively to those four questions more than the samples of other nations? Yes. Can you assert that this is proof that china is more democratic and less authoritarian than those countries? NO. At best, this study shows that public opinion of the government in china is higher than that of the other countries. Which definitely doesn’t mean all that much at all, for example I could ask half my family members and they’d say that things are better now under trump than they’ve ever been before. Is that the case? Absolutely not. Does that change their minds? No. Now, the original article you linked seems much more soft science but the article it first mentions actually has more concrete data but still that data is on public opinion. Unfortunately the democracy index site appears to be missing and “for sale” If you could find me the actual questionnaire in mandarin so we could read it as it was presented and compare with the English version we could rule out some of the bias I presented earlier, but not all. Lastly, kairos buddy, your argument was that a country (which many of the people you’re trying to persuade think is George Orwell big brother level controlling) isn’t authoritarian. Using polled data, especially that which was “implemented by a reputable domestic Chinese polling firm” is not going to hold much evidentiary worth to your target audience. I’m not Anti-China, in fact I was and possibly still am thinking about taking a semester or internship out there; I only wanted to point out that you aren’t actually backing your argument up with any solid evidence especially with regards to your target audience. I really am curious about the test though, especially since the democracy index paper is on a dead site, so if you could find it in Mandarin I’d be interested. If you could find a source on what “reputable polling firm” Harvard used I’d be interested in that too since the report didn’t actually mention the name..? Oh and one last thing is that the article mentions “Furthermore, China outperforms the US and most European countries on these indicators – in fact, it has some of the strongest results in the world.” Fun statistical fact: outliers are a sign your sampling methodology is flawed, especially when the outliers are a set of samples and not just a singular data point. From just the “my government serves the people” bars alone, it would appear the Chinese dataset is well beyond 1.5 standard deviations if the other three are so much lower and show such low variation. If this was a single data point, one would throw it out, but considering it is supposedly a longitudinal collection of samples it implies that there is a very strong influencing factor that is only largely affecting the Chinese survey takers. If the pattern holds for many other metrics, then it implies this singular factor (or other factors) have significantly biased the Chinese samples. This doesn’t necessarily mean that factor is government intervention or bias from being raised in rhetoric from an authoritarian state, but it is statistically unlikely that this factor is simply due to china just somehow having a better democracy than every single country on earth (including all of its allies and enemies alike) by a statistically gigantic margin. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] techpeakedin1991@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) Fun statistical fact: outliers are a sign your sampling methodology is flawed, especially when the outliers are a set of samples and not just a singular data point. "This jet's speed is an outlier in this set of planes. Outliers mean the methodology must be invalid, so jets can't be faster than planes." This is nonsense. China and the euros have fundamentally different political systems, there is no reason to suppose they should have similar outcomes. The whole point of the discussion is that China's system is superior, if you say that any data that supports that is an outlier, and therefore must be invalid you're just presupposing your conclusion. On your other point about the usefulness of this data: while it is true that there can be many different explanations for the observed results, that just means that we need more evidence to show which system is more democratic, not that this evidence is useless. Saying that people's opinion of their own system is irrelevant is extremely chauvinistic. In the case of China, we can see the massive increase in quality of life of it's citizens, as well as a systematic overview of it's political structures like here. I've also heard the book Socialism with Chinese Characteristics: A Guide for Foreigners is good, but I haven't read it yet myself. Furthermore, your point about manipulation of public opinion goes the other way, too. Where did the idea that China is authoritarian come from? People going to China and studying what life is like there, or media manipulation? Who do you think is more likely to be manipulated like that, the people living there who actually experience the political structures of China, or rando westerners whos only source of information is capitalist media? A simple poll like this is more than enough to debunk the people who think China is authoritarian based on nothing but vibes from capitalist media. permalink fedilink source parent [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (8 children) https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/07/long-term-survey-reveals-chinese-government-satisfaction/ permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] AnarchoEngineer@lemmy.dbzer0.com -2 points 1 year ago (7 children) The study in that link is the same one from the last in the report they have the “implemented by a reputable domestic Chinese polling firm” line. The brief neither mentions the name of the polling organization nor does it list or link to the actual questions asked. Honestly seems odd given that it’s Harvard, then again isn’t meant to be a rigorous academic paper and I doubt the Chinese government would be up for letting more research be done if they had found negative associations. Still odd that they won’t name the firm anywhere. Like “The work began in 2003, and together with a leading private research and polling company in China, the team developed a series of questionnaires for in-person interviews.” what leading polling company? Wouldn’t they want their name attached to this? Also an in person questionnaire seems both much more qualitative and much less private than I would have expected. If you want to get people’s true anonymous opinions without any coercive bias, having them physically go somewhere and have to answer questions to an actual person is definitely not the best approach. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago (6 children) i don't trust Harvard as a source ok permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] AnarchoEngineer@lemmy.dbzer0.com -4 points 1 year ago* (5 children) Nice straw man. First, ethos is bullshit man, don’t idolize people or institutions to the point you think they’re infallible. Second, you aren’t making the same claim as the source. And I’m not contradicting it (Harvard’s research). The source rightfully states that their survey found high satisfaction in government, higher than in most other countries. The original paper is on how those reports seem to be increasingly positive overtime and show that development of rural areas correlates with increased reports of happiness in that survey. The researchers question the validity of their results because they are abnormally high and list possible other factors influencing the data. One of the researchers states that they believe the abnormally high levels are likely due other factors like the “highly positive news proliferated throughout the country” so I’m not doubting Harvard I’m actually agreeing with it Lastly, my concern over data collection doesn’t actually apply to Harvard. I’m reasonably certain that Harvard did the best with the data they were given. And the Ash Center used that data to create their little positive promotional brief well too. The research done by Harvard seems sound, as are my concerns about the validity of the collected data and my statement that this kind of data cannot be used to draw conclusions on the actual state of democracy or the actual workings of the government. Fuck it maybe I’ll just send the researchers an email about it tomorrow and see if they respond. I’ve gotten responses from physicists and mathematicians before, might be fun To be fair I doubt that would change your mind since you seem dead set on ignoring my actual argument. If they agree with me you’ll just say they’re producing propaganda for the western elites haha. But hey chances are the researcher will actually engage me in real discussion which would be nice permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 year ago (4 children) First, ethos is bullshit man, don’t idolize people or institutions to the point you think they’re infallible. Funny how stuff like this only applies when it's against the western narrative The researchers question the validity of their results because they are abnormally high a The western brainpan cannot comprehend a genuinely popular government permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] AnarchoEngineer@lemmy.dbzer0.com -3 points 1 year ago (3 children) Funny how stuff like this only applies when it’s against the western narrative This stuff applies always. It’s called critical thinking skills and it absolutely applies when someone is speaking “for the western narrative” too The western brain pan cannot comprehend a genuinely popular government Clearly you can’t comprehend elementary statistics like the central limit theorem lol And honestly god damn you tankies give communists and socialists such a bad name with all your braindead bullshit. Nothing talks me out of trusting china more than talking with you idiots Look I know it’s easy to think that there’s a singular big bad out there. That there’s just this one entity called “the west” and you’ll be able to fight and conquer it. It’s easier to believe things are black and white, that certain countries are innately good and others innately bad at all times. But that’s not reality. If you give into those kinds of delusions you’re not really better than the people who blindly believe in Trump or God etc. It’s easy believe that kind of blind faith because it’s less scary than admitting you might be wrong. We are driven to cling to the idea that there are hero’s out there, a righteous nation behind us fighting for good, someone we can always depend on, but if you don’t see reality as it is, you’re setting yourself up for more pain. Those feelings are opium not a cure, and often they hurt you and your causes too If you’re delusional people won’t believe what you say even if it’s true. So if you constantly go around attacking people with ad hominem, or claiming literally everything is western propaganda without actually providing evidence, you’re really just hurting the causes you’re trying to support Anyway dude, even if you didn’t actually engage my argument you did point me to a fascinating rabbit hole to go down, so thanks for that, but I think I’m going to disengage now I hope your days go well, and I wish you peace and happiness mate permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago* (1 child) This stuff applies always. It’s called critical thinking skills and it absolutely applies when someone is speaking “for the western narrative” too A Chinese source claiming Chinese are happy with their gvmnt doesn't hold as much materiality as a western source claiming that Chinese are happy with their government. (And vice versa) Do you even know what bias is? So much for cirtical thinking on your part Look I know it’s easy to think that there’s a singular big bad out there. That there’s just this one entity called “the west” and you’ll be able to fight and conquer it. It’s easier to believe things are black and white, that certain countries are innately good and others innately bad at all times. But that’s not reality. And you talk about strawman GTFO shitlib permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Micromot@piefed.social 2 points 1 year ago The commenter was questioning the validity of the organisation conducting the survey, which was weirdly not specifically mentioned in the research article. Saying that the data comes from some „reputable“ source is always very untrustworthy even when it’s regarding western countries. This just makes the science difficult to control/refute which is a necessary thing for good scientific research permalink fedilink source parent [–] techpeakedin1991@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago Clearly you can’t comprehend elementary statistics like the central limit theorem lol What? The central limit theorem states that if you take many averages of a distribution, the distribution of averages will be a normal distribution. What does that have to do with anything? Since the resulting normal distribution has a variance of sigma/n, the central limit theorem supports these kinds of polls, since they get more accurate as the number of responses increases. You know you can't just say the words 'central limit theorem' like it's some kind of magic spell right? Like you have to actually make an argument that uses the central limit theorem to support your conclusion. Unless you mean that stuff about outliers? But again, the underlying distributions for different countries are different, so the central limit theorem doesn't apply. There is a more general version of the theorem, but that has many preconditions for validity, so again, you have to show your work that it applies here. You are extremely arrogant for someone who doesn't understand statistics. And honestly god damn you tankies give communists and socialists such a bad name with all your braindead bullshit. Nothing talks me out of trusting china more than talking with you idiots Even if everyone here did have invalid arguments, trusting China less for someone on the internet having a bad argument is a fallacy fallacy. So much for your critical thinking skills. Look I know it’s easy to think that there’s a singular big bad out there. That there’s just this one entity called “the west” and you’ll be able to fight and conquer it. It’s easier to believe things are black and white, that certain countries are innately good and others innately bad at all times. But that’s not reality. Communists regularly criticize China, they criticize the actually bad parts about it, rather than the delusions that only exist in liberal minds, so if you're coming in here with "The ebil authoritarians" commies don't take a 'nuanced' outlook, because the situation has no nuance. What a massive strawman. So much for your critical thinking skills. If you give into those kinds of delusions you’re not really better than the people who blindly believe in Trump or God etc. It’s easy believe that kind of blind faith because it’s less scary than admitting you might be wrong. We are driven to cling to the idea that there are hero’s out there, a righteous nation behind us fighting for good, someone we can always depend on, but if you don’t see reality as it is, you’re setting yourself up for more pain. Once again, massive strawman. So much for your critical thinking skills. If you’re delusional people won’t believe what you say even if it’s true. So if you constantly go around attacking people with ad hominem, Just saying mean things isn't an ad hominem. If I say 'You're wrong because x, therefore you're stupid' that's just an insult. If I say 'You're wrong because you're stupid', that would be an ad hominem. So much for your critical thinking skills. Also real smart complaining about insults in the middle of a massive insulting screed. or claiming literally everything is western propaganda without actually providing evidence They did provide evidence. Not great evidence, but more evidence than anyone provided to claim that China is authoritarian, which is zero. So more than enough evidence for the situation, in other words. If any libs made more specific claims with more specific evidence, more specific counter evidence would have been provided. So much for your critical thinking skills. you’re really just hurting the causes you’re trying to support "You're just hurting your own cause" says the person who hates us and our cause. Anyway dude You know, getting overly familiar with someone you don't know during a disagreement by saying things like 'dude', 'bro' and 'buddy' comes off as massively disrespectful and arrogant. I hope your days go well, and I wish you peace and happiness mate Hell of a thing to say to someone you just insulted and belittled. I might almost think you're being disingenuous. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) [–] zeezee@slrpnk.net 1 point 1 year ago So you consider a state censoring all it's citizens from discussing certain words and topics to not be authoritarian? permalink fedilink source parent [–] chaos@beehaw.org -4 points 1 year ago (12 children) Okay, but we are talking about a country where you aren't allowed to form a political party that opposes the CCP, right? How can we tell the difference between "hell yeah, my country is making my life great" and "there is exactly one answer to this survey question that will not get me in trouble"? I always try to keep in mind that I am not immune to propaganda, but I've personally known Chinese people who have very explicitly declined to offer any criticism of the Chinese government or go against the party line, even in private conversation, because they didn't want trouble. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 15 points 1 year ago (8 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] chaos@beehaw.org -2 points 1 year ago (7 children) But it's also a ban on other socialist parties, not just capitalist ones, and it plays directly into the talking point that socialism is an authoritarian system that is imposed on people, not chosen on its merits. If the CCP really has enjoyed resounding, unwavering support from the proletariat for 75 years straight, why appear so weak by never allowing any competition whatsoever? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] ZeroHora@lemmy.ml 18 points 1 year ago (1 child) There are 8 other minor parties in China. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] chaos@beehaw.org 4 points 1 year ago Oh, c'mon. The PRC is officially organized under what the CCP terms a "system of multi-party cooperation and political consultation under the leadership of the CCP," in which the minor parties must accept the leadership of the CCP. permalink fedilink source parent [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 14 points 1 year ago (5 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (4 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] chaos@beehaw.org 0 points 1 year ago (3 children) I'm trying to get to how it's democratic and worker-controlled in your eyes because it's hard to see for me, as people don't seem to get to choose much in the system as designed. What's the mechanism for average people to change a government policy that they disagree with? If the party does start to lose touch with what the workers need or start working against their interests, how do the workers course-correct it? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (3 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] chaos@beehaw.org -1 points 1 year ago (2 children) But this doesn't answer my question, the only mechanism for people's input seems to be elections and polling, and it conspicuously omits the fact that elections only allow party-approved candidates. Maybe the powers-that-be have a great track record of listening and respecting the will of the people, and are beloved by all as a result, but that doesn't actually put the people in control, it just means the ones actually in control are being nice. When the government and the people have a fundamental disagreement about the path forward, what piece am I missing that makes the government the one to back down? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] chaos@beehaw.org 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Right, that's a good example of it going the way you describe, and I'm curious what would've happened if the government hadn't folded. If the people really are making the decisions, they would get their way eventually, what does that look like? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] chaos@beehaw.org 1 point 1 year ago Ah, I didn't see that edit, apologies, had the page loaded for a while before replying. Isn't that the same leverage that the earliest labor unions used because it was all they had? It seems to fit very well, actually. There's a smaller but more powerful group in charge of them, workers get little to no direct say in company policy or who they are managed by and have to hope they're listened to when asked how things are going. There certainly isn't a second C-suite waiting in the wings to be put into power if the first one disappoints, the current powers-that-be would be insane to allow something as chaotic as that. If the CEO's got a good track record of listening, the pay's pretty good and satisfaction is high, and they're kept in line with picket lines when it's necessary, is this company an extension of the working class like China's government is? I'm comparing and contrasting quite a bit with my new job, which fits much more closely with what my idea of something worker-controlled would be. It's fully employee owned, so profits go either back into the business or into our pockets as bonuses. There's as little hierarchy as possible, the closest thing to a manager isn't ever going to "put" you on a project, you're free to find one that you like and wants you to join. Company decisions involve everyone equally, and there's freedom to loudly speak your mind about policies and procedures if you disagree with them. That's closer to the country I'd want to live in, not the one where my influence is akin to answering corporate surveys and getting to choose which of 3 approved managers I want to work under, or go on strike if I'm really not happy. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) [–] Joncash2@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 year ago (3 children) They refuse to offer criticism to you, they will criticize the CCP constantly amongst themselves. They've sadly learned right or wrong that westerners are always trying to make China look bad. It's largely from western news like BBC. Just look up the phrase China, but at what cost. The most hilarious one I read was China is curing cancer fast, but at what cost. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] tyra@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 year ago permalink fedilink source parent [+] chaos@beehaw.org -7 points 1 year ago (1 child) I'm in awe of your ability to read minds, because that was not at all the vibe I got when I was actually in that conversation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Joncash2@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 year ago Of course not? If they gave you that impression then you would pry. As I said, it's pretty universal at this point. No mind reading needed. The fact that you were trying to do exactly what they're trying to avoid is hilarious to me. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) [–] MisterFrog@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago I'm a big defender of China when the "China Bad" crowd comes out, but this graph is meaningless beyond what people's perceptions are. Real trade unions are banned. All must be part of the party, workers rights are routinely not enforced, and given the lattitude the government has to act, there isn't really much of an excuse. The CCP enjoy massive support, though, this is undeniable. The reasons for this support is debatable and vary from person to person. I for one, very much enjoy when the Chinese government does things in line with my socialist ideals. But let's not pretend like they're actually keeping the capitalists in check. There are many, many billionaires in China, something that ought not be possible under an actual socialist country. It doesn't take a genius to look at their system of voting to quickly conclude that you don't really have a say, the People's Congress functions as a rubber stamp for what the inner party has already decided. Again, my opinions aside, people in China generally are supportive of the government at this present time. permalink fedilink source parent [–] synapse1278@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago (4 children) Better answer the survey correctly when you live in a country that has laws like "disagreeing with the government is a crime" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (4 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 year ago (3 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] synapse1278@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children) Alright, you did convince me that the Chinese people report strong support to the CCP and report a strong perception of democracy. What I am still not convinced of however, is that PRC IS democratic. In my book, for a country to be democratic it needs to have: Freedom of speech Freedom of press Freedom of reunion Freedom of protest Universal access to education Political plurality Universal suffrage Universal respect of human right My opinion today is that, I highly doubt PRC qualifies to any of this points, but I don't know for sure. If you convince me with credible evidence that PRC is better than, let's say, France, Germany or Norway, on all these points, then I am ready to move to China with you next year. Edit: I forgot a few important point on my democratic list of requirements: Laicity (division of state and religion and tolerance for all religions) Division of power (Legislative, Justice, Executive, etc, must be help by different institution regulating each other) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago* (2 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies)
[+] yucandu@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (3 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 year ago (3 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Micromot@piefed.social 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children) What would be a source you deem valid in this case. The only thing I can say is that multiple news sources published about this topic. And what do you have to say about the problem of half-assed building projects that keep killing people in china because they used the wrong type of sand for concrete for example? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (2 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Micromot@piefed.social 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Do you have more information on what the specific banking error was, because most sources I was able to find are focused on the violent intervention and less about what exactly happened in the banks. If not, the incident doesn’t make china as bad or worse than the us but it does make the perfect image of the chinese government seem a bit more questionable. Also, what do you think about the issue of things like tofu dreg construction? Why do you think that happens or did it even happen as shown on multiple videos from chine? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Micromot@piefed.social 2 points 1 year ago Alright, I think tofu-dregs are mostly an issue that happened at a scale once and the reporting is mostly happening as the broken buildings are showing up. I could imagine the issue that caused this has been worked on by now permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies)
[+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 year ago (3 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Micromot@piefed.social 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children) What would be a source you deem valid in this case. The only thing I can say is that multiple news sources published about this topic. And what do you have to say about the problem of half-assed building projects that keep killing people in china because they used the wrong type of sand for concrete for example? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (2 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Micromot@piefed.social 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Do you have more information on what the specific banking error was, because most sources I was able to find are focused on the violent intervention and less about what exactly happened in the banks. If not, the incident doesn’t make china as bad or worse than the us but it does make the perfect image of the chinese government seem a bit more questionable. Also, what do you think about the issue of things like tofu dreg construction? Why do you think that happens or did it even happen as shown on multiple videos from chine? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Micromot@piefed.social 2 points 1 year ago Alright, I think tofu-dregs are mostly an issue that happened at a scale once and the reporting is mostly happening as the broken buildings are showing up. I could imagine the issue that caused this has been worked on by now permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies)
[–] Micromot@piefed.social 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children) What would be a source you deem valid in this case. The only thing I can say is that multiple news sources published about this topic. And what do you have to say about the problem of half-assed building projects that keep killing people in china because they used the wrong type of sand for concrete for example? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (2 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Micromot@piefed.social 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Do you have more information on what the specific banking error was, because most sources I was able to find are focused on the violent intervention and less about what exactly happened in the banks. If not, the incident doesn’t make china as bad or worse than the us but it does make the perfect image of the chinese government seem a bit more questionable. Also, what do you think about the issue of things like tofu dreg construction? Why do you think that happens or did it even happen as shown on multiple videos from chine? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Micromot@piefed.social 2 points 1 year ago Alright, I think tofu-dregs are mostly an issue that happened at a scale once and the reporting is mostly happening as the broken buildings are showing up. I could imagine the issue that caused this has been worked on by now permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies)
[+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (2 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Micromot@piefed.social 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Do you have more information on what the specific banking error was, because most sources I was able to find are focused on the violent intervention and less about what exactly happened in the banks. If not, the incident doesn’t make china as bad or worse than the us but it does make the perfect image of the chinese government seem a bit more questionable. Also, what do you think about the issue of things like tofu dreg construction? Why do you think that happens or did it even happen as shown on multiple videos from chine? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Micromot@piefed.social 2 points 1 year ago Alright, I think tofu-dregs are mostly an issue that happened at a scale once and the reporting is mostly happening as the broken buildings are showing up. I could imagine the issue that caused this has been worked on by now permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies)
[–] Micromot@piefed.social 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Do you have more information on what the specific banking error was, because most sources I was able to find are focused on the violent intervention and less about what exactly happened in the banks. If not, the incident doesn’t make china as bad or worse than the us but it does make the perfect image of the chinese government seem a bit more questionable. Also, what do you think about the issue of things like tofu dreg construction? Why do you think that happens or did it even happen as shown on multiple videos from chine? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Micromot@piefed.social 2 points 1 year ago Alright, I think tofu-dregs are mostly an issue that happened at a scale once and the reporting is mostly happening as the broken buildings are showing up. I could imagine the issue that caused this has been worked on by now permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies)
[+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Micromot@piefed.social 2 points 1 year ago Alright, I think tofu-dregs are mostly an issue that happened at a scale once and the reporting is mostly happening as the broken buildings are showing up. I could imagine the issue that caused this has been worked on by now permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Micromot@piefed.social 2 points 1 year ago Alright, I think tofu-dregs are mostly an issue that happened at a scale once and the reporting is mostly happening as the broken buildings are showing up. I could imagine the issue that caused this has been worked on by now permalink fedilink source parent
[–] syzygy@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago Can you please provide a source for the graphic? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] AnarchoEngineer@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 1 year ago (12 children) Meta argument: charts like this are basically useless. I was raised in a very religious town. If you asked, the people in that town would say “my religion is a religion of love” “people should be as free as possible because it’s an extension of personal agency” and all the while they beat their kids and would rather die than let gay or trans people be themselves. They can quote the scriptures and could likely write some pretty strong rhetoric implying they are loving and kind and caring, but it wouldn’t be anywhere near the truth. Point is that just because you get phrases pounded into your head doesn’t mean you truly believe them or even know what they imply. If your country’s rhetoric specifically states that the government serves the people and says it over and over, regardless of the truth of that statement, people will have a tendency to select it. (Like if your government called itself the people’s republic…) If you asked Americans and Chinese if they think personal freedom is important, you’d likely get the reverse pattern in your graph. Is this because America has more freedom? No, more likely it’s because the historical rhetoric we get exposed to emphasizes “freedom” whereas China’s revolutionary rhetoric was centered around “democracy” If you asked Americans if they support socialism, you’d get lower bars than if you asked it indirectly. Just using the word socialism skews your metric. People will say they support or don’t support concepts they don’t understand, or that they view in a different light than others. Does democracy mean more than two political parties? Does democracy mean no capitalism? Does democracy require freedom to spread information freely? Etc. So once again these metrics are useless because I’d imagine most of these countries’ voters would disagree on what the statements even mean. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 20 points 1 year ago (12 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] AnarchoEngineer@lemmy.dbzer0.com -4 points 1 year ago (11 children) Why would that have any effect on the point of my argument? My point is about the ineffectiveness and unscientific nature of this kind of questionnaire. Doesn’t matter what topics or debates these are used in or who is right in those debates; the point is that these kind of charts are useless regardless of their content. Sidenote: if you had “various metrics” why’d you post the least scientific one? Like bro, brain-dead “libertarians” could probably pull out some statistic or study that is more sound than this chart to support their idiotic bullshit. If a fellow anarchist tried to use a metric like this I’d call them out too even if I agreed with their point permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 15 points 1 year ago (11 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] AnarchoEngineer@lemmy.dbzer0.com -4 points 1 year ago (10 children) The only thing the questionnaire does, assuming it is built well, is show that when asked those questions people in different countries answered differently. Did the Chinese populations sampled by the study respond more positively to those four questions more than the samples of other nations? Yes. Can you assert that this is proof that china is more democratic and less authoritarian than those countries? NO. At best, this study shows that public opinion of the government in china is higher than that of the other countries. Which definitely doesn’t mean all that much at all, for example I could ask half my family members and they’d say that things are better now under trump than they’ve ever been before. Is that the case? Absolutely not. Does that change their minds? No. Now, the original article you linked seems much more soft science but the article it first mentions actually has more concrete data but still that data is on public opinion. Unfortunately the democracy index site appears to be missing and “for sale” If you could find me the actual questionnaire in mandarin so we could read it as it was presented and compare with the English version we could rule out some of the bias I presented earlier, but not all. Lastly, kairos buddy, your argument was that a country (which many of the people you’re trying to persuade think is George Orwell big brother level controlling) isn’t authoritarian. Using polled data, especially that which was “implemented by a reputable domestic Chinese polling firm” is not going to hold much evidentiary worth to your target audience. I’m not Anti-China, in fact I was and possibly still am thinking about taking a semester or internship out there; I only wanted to point out that you aren’t actually backing your argument up with any solid evidence especially with regards to your target audience. I really am curious about the test though, especially since the democracy index paper is on a dead site, so if you could find it in Mandarin I’d be interested. If you could find a source on what “reputable polling firm” Harvard used I’d be interested in that too since the report didn’t actually mention the name..? Oh and one last thing is that the article mentions “Furthermore, China outperforms the US and most European countries on these indicators – in fact, it has some of the strongest results in the world.” Fun statistical fact: outliers are a sign your sampling methodology is flawed, especially when the outliers are a set of samples and not just a singular data point. From just the “my government serves the people” bars alone, it would appear the Chinese dataset is well beyond 1.5 standard deviations if the other three are so much lower and show such low variation. If this was a single data point, one would throw it out, but considering it is supposedly a longitudinal collection of samples it implies that there is a very strong influencing factor that is only largely affecting the Chinese survey takers. If the pattern holds for many other metrics, then it implies this singular factor (or other factors) have significantly biased the Chinese samples. This doesn’t necessarily mean that factor is government intervention or bias from being raised in rhetoric from an authoritarian state, but it is statistically unlikely that this factor is simply due to china just somehow having a better democracy than every single country on earth (including all of its allies and enemies alike) by a statistically gigantic margin. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] techpeakedin1991@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) Fun statistical fact: outliers are a sign your sampling methodology is flawed, especially when the outliers are a set of samples and not just a singular data point. "This jet's speed is an outlier in this set of planes. Outliers mean the methodology must be invalid, so jets can't be faster than planes." This is nonsense. China and the euros have fundamentally different political systems, there is no reason to suppose they should have similar outcomes. The whole point of the discussion is that China's system is superior, if you say that any data that supports that is an outlier, and therefore must be invalid you're just presupposing your conclusion. On your other point about the usefulness of this data: while it is true that there can be many different explanations for the observed results, that just means that we need more evidence to show which system is more democratic, not that this evidence is useless. Saying that people's opinion of their own system is irrelevant is extremely chauvinistic. In the case of China, we can see the massive increase in quality of life of it's citizens, as well as a systematic overview of it's political structures like here. I've also heard the book Socialism with Chinese Characteristics: A Guide for Foreigners is good, but I haven't read it yet myself. Furthermore, your point about manipulation of public opinion goes the other way, too. Where did the idea that China is authoritarian come from? People going to China and studying what life is like there, or media manipulation? Who do you think is more likely to be manipulated like that, the people living there who actually experience the political structures of China, or rando westerners whos only source of information is capitalist media? A simple poll like this is more than enough to debunk the people who think China is authoritarian based on nothing but vibes from capitalist media. permalink fedilink source parent [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (8 children) https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/07/long-term-survey-reveals-chinese-government-satisfaction/ permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] AnarchoEngineer@lemmy.dbzer0.com -2 points 1 year ago (7 children) The study in that link is the same one from the last in the report they have the “implemented by a reputable domestic Chinese polling firm” line. The brief neither mentions the name of the polling organization nor does it list or link to the actual questions asked. Honestly seems odd given that it’s Harvard, then again isn’t meant to be a rigorous academic paper and I doubt the Chinese government would be up for letting more research be done if they had found negative associations. Still odd that they won’t name the firm anywhere. Like “The work began in 2003, and together with a leading private research and polling company in China, the team developed a series of questionnaires for in-person interviews.” what leading polling company? Wouldn’t they want their name attached to this? Also an in person questionnaire seems both much more qualitative and much less private than I would have expected. If you want to get people’s true anonymous opinions without any coercive bias, having them physically go somewhere and have to answer questions to an actual person is definitely not the best approach. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago (6 children) i don't trust Harvard as a source ok permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] AnarchoEngineer@lemmy.dbzer0.com -4 points 1 year ago* (5 children) Nice straw man. First, ethos is bullshit man, don’t idolize people or institutions to the point you think they’re infallible. Second, you aren’t making the same claim as the source. And I’m not contradicting it (Harvard’s research). The source rightfully states that their survey found high satisfaction in government, higher than in most other countries. The original paper is on how those reports seem to be increasingly positive overtime and show that development of rural areas correlates with increased reports of happiness in that survey. The researchers question the validity of their results because they are abnormally high and list possible other factors influencing the data. One of the researchers states that they believe the abnormally high levels are likely due other factors like the “highly positive news proliferated throughout the country” so I’m not doubting Harvard I’m actually agreeing with it Lastly, my concern over data collection doesn’t actually apply to Harvard. I’m reasonably certain that Harvard did the best with the data they were given. And the Ash Center used that data to create their little positive promotional brief well too. The research done by Harvard seems sound, as are my concerns about the validity of the collected data and my statement that this kind of data cannot be used to draw conclusions on the actual state of democracy or the actual workings of the government. Fuck it maybe I’ll just send the researchers an email about it tomorrow and see if they respond. I’ve gotten responses from physicists and mathematicians before, might be fun To be fair I doubt that would change your mind since you seem dead set on ignoring my actual argument. If they agree with me you’ll just say they’re producing propaganda for the western elites haha. But hey chances are the researcher will actually engage me in real discussion which would be nice permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 year ago (4 children) First, ethos is bullshit man, don’t idolize people or institutions to the point you think they’re infallible. Funny how stuff like this only applies when it's against the western narrative The researchers question the validity of their results because they are abnormally high a The western brainpan cannot comprehend a genuinely popular government permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] AnarchoEngineer@lemmy.dbzer0.com -3 points 1 year ago (3 children) Funny how stuff like this only applies when it’s against the western narrative This stuff applies always. It’s called critical thinking skills and it absolutely applies when someone is speaking “for the western narrative” too The western brain pan cannot comprehend a genuinely popular government Clearly you can’t comprehend elementary statistics like the central limit theorem lol And honestly god damn you tankies give communists and socialists such a bad name with all your braindead bullshit. Nothing talks me out of trusting china more than talking with you idiots Look I know it’s easy to think that there’s a singular big bad out there. That there’s just this one entity called “the west” and you’ll be able to fight and conquer it. It’s easier to believe things are black and white, that certain countries are innately good and others innately bad at all times. But that’s not reality. If you give into those kinds of delusions you’re not really better than the people who blindly believe in Trump or God etc. It’s easy believe that kind of blind faith because it’s less scary than admitting you might be wrong. We are driven to cling to the idea that there are hero’s out there, a righteous nation behind us fighting for good, someone we can always depend on, but if you don’t see reality as it is, you’re setting yourself up for more pain. Those feelings are opium not a cure, and often they hurt you and your causes too If you’re delusional people won’t believe what you say even if it’s true. So if you constantly go around attacking people with ad hominem, or claiming literally everything is western propaganda without actually providing evidence, you’re really just hurting the causes you’re trying to support Anyway dude, even if you didn’t actually engage my argument you did point me to a fascinating rabbit hole to go down, so thanks for that, but I think I’m going to disengage now I hope your days go well, and I wish you peace and happiness mate permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago* (1 child) This stuff applies always. It’s called critical thinking skills and it absolutely applies when someone is speaking “for the western narrative” too A Chinese source claiming Chinese are happy with their gvmnt doesn't hold as much materiality as a western source claiming that Chinese are happy with their government. (And vice versa) Do you even know what bias is? So much for cirtical thinking on your part Look I know it’s easy to think that there’s a singular big bad out there. That there’s just this one entity called “the west” and you’ll be able to fight and conquer it. It’s easier to believe things are black and white, that certain countries are innately good and others innately bad at all times. But that’s not reality. And you talk about strawman GTFO shitlib permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Micromot@piefed.social 2 points 1 year ago The commenter was questioning the validity of the organisation conducting the survey, which was weirdly not specifically mentioned in the research article. Saying that the data comes from some „reputable“ source is always very untrustworthy even when it’s regarding western countries. This just makes the science difficult to control/refute which is a necessary thing for good scientific research permalink fedilink source parent [–] techpeakedin1991@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago Clearly you can’t comprehend elementary statistics like the central limit theorem lol What? The central limit theorem states that if you take many averages of a distribution, the distribution of averages will be a normal distribution. What does that have to do with anything? Since the resulting normal distribution has a variance of sigma/n, the central limit theorem supports these kinds of polls, since they get more accurate as the number of responses increases. You know you can't just say the words 'central limit theorem' like it's some kind of magic spell right? Like you have to actually make an argument that uses the central limit theorem to support your conclusion. Unless you mean that stuff about outliers? But again, the underlying distributions for different countries are different, so the central limit theorem doesn't apply. There is a more general version of the theorem, but that has many preconditions for validity, so again, you have to show your work that it applies here. You are extremely arrogant for someone who doesn't understand statistics. And honestly god damn you tankies give communists and socialists such a bad name with all your braindead bullshit. Nothing talks me out of trusting china more than talking with you idiots Even if everyone here did have invalid arguments, trusting China less for someone on the internet having a bad argument is a fallacy fallacy. So much for your critical thinking skills. Look I know it’s easy to think that there’s a singular big bad out there. That there’s just this one entity called “the west” and you’ll be able to fight and conquer it. It’s easier to believe things are black and white, that certain countries are innately good and others innately bad at all times. But that’s not reality. Communists regularly criticize China, they criticize the actually bad parts about it, rather than the delusions that only exist in liberal minds, so if you're coming in here with "The ebil authoritarians" commies don't take a 'nuanced' outlook, because the situation has no nuance. What a massive strawman. So much for your critical thinking skills. If you give into those kinds of delusions you’re not really better than the people who blindly believe in Trump or God etc. It’s easy believe that kind of blind faith because it’s less scary than admitting you might be wrong. We are driven to cling to the idea that there are hero’s out there, a righteous nation behind us fighting for good, someone we can always depend on, but if you don’t see reality as it is, you’re setting yourself up for more pain. Once again, massive strawman. So much for your critical thinking skills. If you’re delusional people won’t believe what you say even if it’s true. So if you constantly go around attacking people with ad hominem, Just saying mean things isn't an ad hominem. If I say 'You're wrong because x, therefore you're stupid' that's just an insult. If I say 'You're wrong because you're stupid', that would be an ad hominem. So much for your critical thinking skills. Also real smart complaining about insults in the middle of a massive insulting screed. or claiming literally everything is western propaganda without actually providing evidence They did provide evidence. Not great evidence, but more evidence than anyone provided to claim that China is authoritarian, which is zero. So more than enough evidence for the situation, in other words. If any libs made more specific claims with more specific evidence, more specific counter evidence would have been provided. So much for your critical thinking skills. you’re really just hurting the causes you’re trying to support "You're just hurting your own cause" says the person who hates us and our cause. Anyway dude You know, getting overly familiar with someone you don't know during a disagreement by saying things like 'dude', 'bro' and 'buddy' comes off as massively disrespectful and arrogant. I hope your days go well, and I wish you peace and happiness mate Hell of a thing to say to someone you just insulted and belittled. I might almost think you're being disingenuous. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies)
[+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 20 points 1 year ago (12 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] AnarchoEngineer@lemmy.dbzer0.com -4 points 1 year ago (11 children) Why would that have any effect on the point of my argument? My point is about the ineffectiveness and unscientific nature of this kind of questionnaire. Doesn’t matter what topics or debates these are used in or who is right in those debates; the point is that these kind of charts are useless regardless of their content. Sidenote: if you had “various metrics” why’d you post the least scientific one? Like bro, brain-dead “libertarians” could probably pull out some statistic or study that is more sound than this chart to support their idiotic bullshit. If a fellow anarchist tried to use a metric like this I’d call them out too even if I agreed with their point permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 15 points 1 year ago (11 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] AnarchoEngineer@lemmy.dbzer0.com -4 points 1 year ago (10 children) The only thing the questionnaire does, assuming it is built well, is show that when asked those questions people in different countries answered differently. Did the Chinese populations sampled by the study respond more positively to those four questions more than the samples of other nations? Yes. Can you assert that this is proof that china is more democratic and less authoritarian than those countries? NO. At best, this study shows that public opinion of the government in china is higher than that of the other countries. Which definitely doesn’t mean all that much at all, for example I could ask half my family members and they’d say that things are better now under trump than they’ve ever been before. Is that the case? Absolutely not. Does that change their minds? No. Now, the original article you linked seems much more soft science but the article it first mentions actually has more concrete data but still that data is on public opinion. Unfortunately the democracy index site appears to be missing and “for sale” If you could find me the actual questionnaire in mandarin so we could read it as it was presented and compare with the English version we could rule out some of the bias I presented earlier, but not all. Lastly, kairos buddy, your argument was that a country (which many of the people you’re trying to persuade think is George Orwell big brother level controlling) isn’t authoritarian. Using polled data, especially that which was “implemented by a reputable domestic Chinese polling firm” is not going to hold much evidentiary worth to your target audience. I’m not Anti-China, in fact I was and possibly still am thinking about taking a semester or internship out there; I only wanted to point out that you aren’t actually backing your argument up with any solid evidence especially with regards to your target audience. I really am curious about the test though, especially since the democracy index paper is on a dead site, so if you could find it in Mandarin I’d be interested. If you could find a source on what “reputable polling firm” Harvard used I’d be interested in that too since the report didn’t actually mention the name..? Oh and one last thing is that the article mentions “Furthermore, China outperforms the US and most European countries on these indicators – in fact, it has some of the strongest results in the world.” Fun statistical fact: outliers are a sign your sampling methodology is flawed, especially when the outliers are a set of samples and not just a singular data point. From just the “my government serves the people” bars alone, it would appear the Chinese dataset is well beyond 1.5 standard deviations if the other three are so much lower and show such low variation. If this was a single data point, one would throw it out, but considering it is supposedly a longitudinal collection of samples it implies that there is a very strong influencing factor that is only largely affecting the Chinese survey takers. If the pattern holds for many other metrics, then it implies this singular factor (or other factors) have significantly biased the Chinese samples. This doesn’t necessarily mean that factor is government intervention or bias from being raised in rhetoric from an authoritarian state, but it is statistically unlikely that this factor is simply due to china just somehow having a better democracy than every single country on earth (including all of its allies and enemies alike) by a statistically gigantic margin. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] techpeakedin1991@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) Fun statistical fact: outliers are a sign your sampling methodology is flawed, especially when the outliers are a set of samples and not just a singular data point. "This jet's speed is an outlier in this set of planes. Outliers mean the methodology must be invalid, so jets can't be faster than planes." This is nonsense. China and the euros have fundamentally different political systems, there is no reason to suppose they should have similar outcomes. The whole point of the discussion is that China's system is superior, if you say that any data that supports that is an outlier, and therefore must be invalid you're just presupposing your conclusion. On your other point about the usefulness of this data: while it is true that there can be many different explanations for the observed results, that just means that we need more evidence to show which system is more democratic, not that this evidence is useless. Saying that people's opinion of their own system is irrelevant is extremely chauvinistic. In the case of China, we can see the massive increase in quality of life of it's citizens, as well as a systematic overview of it's political structures like here. I've also heard the book Socialism with Chinese Characteristics: A Guide for Foreigners is good, but I haven't read it yet myself. Furthermore, your point about manipulation of public opinion goes the other way, too. Where did the idea that China is authoritarian come from? People going to China and studying what life is like there, or media manipulation? Who do you think is more likely to be manipulated like that, the people living there who actually experience the political structures of China, or rando westerners whos only source of information is capitalist media? A simple poll like this is more than enough to debunk the people who think China is authoritarian based on nothing but vibes from capitalist media. permalink fedilink source parent [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (8 children) https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/07/long-term-survey-reveals-chinese-government-satisfaction/ permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] AnarchoEngineer@lemmy.dbzer0.com -2 points 1 year ago (7 children) The study in that link is the same one from the last in the report they have the “implemented by a reputable domestic Chinese polling firm” line. The brief neither mentions the name of the polling organization nor does it list or link to the actual questions asked. Honestly seems odd given that it’s Harvard, then again isn’t meant to be a rigorous academic paper and I doubt the Chinese government would be up for letting more research be done if they had found negative associations. Still odd that they won’t name the firm anywhere. Like “The work began in 2003, and together with a leading private research and polling company in China, the team developed a series of questionnaires for in-person interviews.” what leading polling company? Wouldn’t they want their name attached to this? Also an in person questionnaire seems both much more qualitative and much less private than I would have expected. If you want to get people’s true anonymous opinions without any coercive bias, having them physically go somewhere and have to answer questions to an actual person is definitely not the best approach. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago (6 children) i don't trust Harvard as a source ok permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] AnarchoEngineer@lemmy.dbzer0.com -4 points 1 year ago* (5 children) Nice straw man. First, ethos is bullshit man, don’t idolize people or institutions to the point you think they’re infallible. Second, you aren’t making the same claim as the source. And I’m not contradicting it (Harvard’s research). The source rightfully states that their survey found high satisfaction in government, higher than in most other countries. The original paper is on how those reports seem to be increasingly positive overtime and show that development of rural areas correlates with increased reports of happiness in that survey. The researchers question the validity of their results because they are abnormally high and list possible other factors influencing the data. One of the researchers states that they believe the abnormally high levels are likely due other factors like the “highly positive news proliferated throughout the country” so I’m not doubting Harvard I’m actually agreeing with it Lastly, my concern over data collection doesn’t actually apply to Harvard. I’m reasonably certain that Harvard did the best with the data they were given. And the Ash Center used that data to create their little positive promotional brief well too. The research done by Harvard seems sound, as are my concerns about the validity of the collected data and my statement that this kind of data cannot be used to draw conclusions on the actual state of democracy or the actual workings of the government. Fuck it maybe I’ll just send the researchers an email about it tomorrow and see if they respond. I’ve gotten responses from physicists and mathematicians before, might be fun To be fair I doubt that would change your mind since you seem dead set on ignoring my actual argument. If they agree with me you’ll just say they’re producing propaganda for the western elites haha. But hey chances are the researcher will actually engage me in real discussion which would be nice permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 year ago (4 children) First, ethos is bullshit man, don’t idolize people or institutions to the point you think they’re infallible. Funny how stuff like this only applies when it's against the western narrative The researchers question the validity of their results because they are abnormally high a The western brainpan cannot comprehend a genuinely popular government permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] AnarchoEngineer@lemmy.dbzer0.com -3 points 1 year ago (3 children) Funny how stuff like this only applies when it’s against the western narrative This stuff applies always. It’s called critical thinking skills and it absolutely applies when someone is speaking “for the western narrative” too The western brain pan cannot comprehend a genuinely popular government Clearly you can’t comprehend elementary statistics like the central limit theorem lol And honestly god damn you tankies give communists and socialists such a bad name with all your braindead bullshit. Nothing talks me out of trusting china more than talking with you idiots Look I know it’s easy to think that there’s a singular big bad out there. That there’s just this one entity called “the west” and you’ll be able to fight and conquer it. It’s easier to believe things are black and white, that certain countries are innately good and others innately bad at all times. But that’s not reality. If you give into those kinds of delusions you’re not really better than the people who blindly believe in Trump or God etc. It’s easy believe that kind of blind faith because it’s less scary than admitting you might be wrong. We are driven to cling to the idea that there are hero’s out there, a righteous nation behind us fighting for good, someone we can always depend on, but if you don’t see reality as it is, you’re setting yourself up for more pain. Those feelings are opium not a cure, and often they hurt you and your causes too If you’re delusional people won’t believe what you say even if it’s true. So if you constantly go around attacking people with ad hominem, or claiming literally everything is western propaganda without actually providing evidence, you’re really just hurting the causes you’re trying to support Anyway dude, even if you didn’t actually engage my argument you did point me to a fascinating rabbit hole to go down, so thanks for that, but I think I’m going to disengage now I hope your days go well, and I wish you peace and happiness mate permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago* (1 child) This stuff applies always. It’s called critical thinking skills and it absolutely applies when someone is speaking “for the western narrative” too A Chinese source claiming Chinese are happy with their gvmnt doesn't hold as much materiality as a western source claiming that Chinese are happy with their government. (And vice versa) Do you even know what bias is? So much for cirtical thinking on your part Look I know it’s easy to think that there’s a singular big bad out there. That there’s just this one entity called “the west” and you’ll be able to fight and conquer it. It’s easier to believe things are black and white, that certain countries are innately good and others innately bad at all times. But that’s not reality. And you talk about strawman GTFO shitlib permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Micromot@piefed.social 2 points 1 year ago The commenter was questioning the validity of the organisation conducting the survey, which was weirdly not specifically mentioned in the research article. Saying that the data comes from some „reputable“ source is always very untrustworthy even when it’s regarding western countries. This just makes the science difficult to control/refute which is a necessary thing for good scientific research permalink fedilink source parent [–] techpeakedin1991@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago Clearly you can’t comprehend elementary statistics like the central limit theorem lol What? The central limit theorem states that if you take many averages of a distribution, the distribution of averages will be a normal distribution. What does that have to do with anything? Since the resulting normal distribution has a variance of sigma/n, the central limit theorem supports these kinds of polls, since they get more accurate as the number of responses increases. You know you can't just say the words 'central limit theorem' like it's some kind of magic spell right? Like you have to actually make an argument that uses the central limit theorem to support your conclusion. Unless you mean that stuff about outliers? But again, the underlying distributions for different countries are different, so the central limit theorem doesn't apply. There is a more general version of the theorem, but that has many preconditions for validity, so again, you have to show your work that it applies here. You are extremely arrogant for someone who doesn't understand statistics. And honestly god damn you tankies give communists and socialists such a bad name with all your braindead bullshit. Nothing talks me out of trusting china more than talking with you idiots Even if everyone here did have invalid arguments, trusting China less for someone on the internet having a bad argument is a fallacy fallacy. So much for your critical thinking skills. Look I know it’s easy to think that there’s a singular big bad out there. That there’s just this one entity called “the west” and you’ll be able to fight and conquer it. It’s easier to believe things are black and white, that certain countries are innately good and others innately bad at all times. But that’s not reality. Communists regularly criticize China, they criticize the actually bad parts about it, rather than the delusions that only exist in liberal minds, so if you're coming in here with "The ebil authoritarians" commies don't take a 'nuanced' outlook, because the situation has no nuance. What a massive strawman. So much for your critical thinking skills. If you give into those kinds of delusions you’re not really better than the people who blindly believe in Trump or God etc. It’s easy believe that kind of blind faith because it’s less scary than admitting you might be wrong. We are driven to cling to the idea that there are hero’s out there, a righteous nation behind us fighting for good, someone we can always depend on, but if you don’t see reality as it is, you’re setting yourself up for more pain. Once again, massive strawman. So much for your critical thinking skills. If you’re delusional people won’t believe what you say even if it’s true. So if you constantly go around attacking people with ad hominem, Just saying mean things isn't an ad hominem. If I say 'You're wrong because x, therefore you're stupid' that's just an insult. If I say 'You're wrong because you're stupid', that would be an ad hominem. So much for your critical thinking skills. Also real smart complaining about insults in the middle of a massive insulting screed. or claiming literally everything is western propaganda without actually providing evidence They did provide evidence. Not great evidence, but more evidence than anyone provided to claim that China is authoritarian, which is zero. So more than enough evidence for the situation, in other words. If any libs made more specific claims with more specific evidence, more specific counter evidence would have been provided. So much for your critical thinking skills. you’re really just hurting the causes you’re trying to support "You're just hurting your own cause" says the person who hates us and our cause. Anyway dude You know, getting overly familiar with someone you don't know during a disagreement by saying things like 'dude', 'bro' and 'buddy' comes off as massively disrespectful and arrogant. I hope your days go well, and I wish you peace and happiness mate Hell of a thing to say to someone you just insulted and belittled. I might almost think you're being disingenuous. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies)
[–] AnarchoEngineer@lemmy.dbzer0.com -4 points 1 year ago (11 children) Why would that have any effect on the point of my argument? My point is about the ineffectiveness and unscientific nature of this kind of questionnaire. Doesn’t matter what topics or debates these are used in or who is right in those debates; the point is that these kind of charts are useless regardless of their content. Sidenote: if you had “various metrics” why’d you post the least scientific one? Like bro, brain-dead “libertarians” could probably pull out some statistic or study that is more sound than this chart to support their idiotic bullshit. If a fellow anarchist tried to use a metric like this I’d call them out too even if I agreed with their point permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 15 points 1 year ago (11 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] AnarchoEngineer@lemmy.dbzer0.com -4 points 1 year ago (10 children) The only thing the questionnaire does, assuming it is built well, is show that when asked those questions people in different countries answered differently. Did the Chinese populations sampled by the study respond more positively to those four questions more than the samples of other nations? Yes. Can you assert that this is proof that china is more democratic and less authoritarian than those countries? NO. At best, this study shows that public opinion of the government in china is higher than that of the other countries. Which definitely doesn’t mean all that much at all, for example I could ask half my family members and they’d say that things are better now under trump than they’ve ever been before. Is that the case? Absolutely not. Does that change their minds? No. Now, the original article you linked seems much more soft science but the article it first mentions actually has more concrete data but still that data is on public opinion. Unfortunately the democracy index site appears to be missing and “for sale” If you could find me the actual questionnaire in mandarin so we could read it as it was presented and compare with the English version we could rule out some of the bias I presented earlier, but not all. Lastly, kairos buddy, your argument was that a country (which many of the people you’re trying to persuade think is George Orwell big brother level controlling) isn’t authoritarian. Using polled data, especially that which was “implemented by a reputable domestic Chinese polling firm” is not going to hold much evidentiary worth to your target audience. I’m not Anti-China, in fact I was and possibly still am thinking about taking a semester or internship out there; I only wanted to point out that you aren’t actually backing your argument up with any solid evidence especially with regards to your target audience. I really am curious about the test though, especially since the democracy index paper is on a dead site, so if you could find it in Mandarin I’d be interested. If you could find a source on what “reputable polling firm” Harvard used I’d be interested in that too since the report didn’t actually mention the name..? Oh and one last thing is that the article mentions “Furthermore, China outperforms the US and most European countries on these indicators – in fact, it has some of the strongest results in the world.” Fun statistical fact: outliers are a sign your sampling methodology is flawed, especially when the outliers are a set of samples and not just a singular data point. From just the “my government serves the people” bars alone, it would appear the Chinese dataset is well beyond 1.5 standard deviations if the other three are so much lower and show such low variation. If this was a single data point, one would throw it out, but considering it is supposedly a longitudinal collection of samples it implies that there is a very strong influencing factor that is only largely affecting the Chinese survey takers. If the pattern holds for many other metrics, then it implies this singular factor (or other factors) have significantly biased the Chinese samples. This doesn’t necessarily mean that factor is government intervention or bias from being raised in rhetoric from an authoritarian state, but it is statistically unlikely that this factor is simply due to china just somehow having a better democracy than every single country on earth (including all of its allies and enemies alike) by a statistically gigantic margin. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] techpeakedin1991@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) Fun statistical fact: outliers are a sign your sampling methodology is flawed, especially when the outliers are a set of samples and not just a singular data point. "This jet's speed is an outlier in this set of planes. Outliers mean the methodology must be invalid, so jets can't be faster than planes." This is nonsense. China and the euros have fundamentally different political systems, there is no reason to suppose they should have similar outcomes. The whole point of the discussion is that China's system is superior, if you say that any data that supports that is an outlier, and therefore must be invalid you're just presupposing your conclusion. On your other point about the usefulness of this data: while it is true that there can be many different explanations for the observed results, that just means that we need more evidence to show which system is more democratic, not that this evidence is useless. Saying that people's opinion of their own system is irrelevant is extremely chauvinistic. In the case of China, we can see the massive increase in quality of life of it's citizens, as well as a systematic overview of it's political structures like here. I've also heard the book Socialism with Chinese Characteristics: A Guide for Foreigners is good, but I haven't read it yet myself. Furthermore, your point about manipulation of public opinion goes the other way, too. Where did the idea that China is authoritarian come from? People going to China and studying what life is like there, or media manipulation? Who do you think is more likely to be manipulated like that, the people living there who actually experience the political structures of China, or rando westerners whos only source of information is capitalist media? A simple poll like this is more than enough to debunk the people who think China is authoritarian based on nothing but vibes from capitalist media. permalink fedilink source parent [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (8 children) https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/07/long-term-survey-reveals-chinese-government-satisfaction/ permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] AnarchoEngineer@lemmy.dbzer0.com -2 points 1 year ago (7 children) The study in that link is the same one from the last in the report they have the “implemented by a reputable domestic Chinese polling firm” line. The brief neither mentions the name of the polling organization nor does it list or link to the actual questions asked. Honestly seems odd given that it’s Harvard, then again isn’t meant to be a rigorous academic paper and I doubt the Chinese government would be up for letting more research be done if they had found negative associations. Still odd that they won’t name the firm anywhere. Like “The work began in 2003, and together with a leading private research and polling company in China, the team developed a series of questionnaires for in-person interviews.” what leading polling company? Wouldn’t they want their name attached to this? Also an in person questionnaire seems both much more qualitative and much less private than I would have expected. If you want to get people’s true anonymous opinions without any coercive bias, having them physically go somewhere and have to answer questions to an actual person is definitely not the best approach. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago (6 children) i don't trust Harvard as a source ok permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] AnarchoEngineer@lemmy.dbzer0.com -4 points 1 year ago* (5 children) Nice straw man. First, ethos is bullshit man, don’t idolize people or institutions to the point you think they’re infallible. Second, you aren’t making the same claim as the source. And I’m not contradicting it (Harvard’s research). The source rightfully states that their survey found high satisfaction in government, higher than in most other countries. The original paper is on how those reports seem to be increasingly positive overtime and show that development of rural areas correlates with increased reports of happiness in that survey. The researchers question the validity of their results because they are abnormally high and list possible other factors influencing the data. One of the researchers states that they believe the abnormally high levels are likely due other factors like the “highly positive news proliferated throughout the country” so I’m not doubting Harvard I’m actually agreeing with it Lastly, my concern over data collection doesn’t actually apply to Harvard. I’m reasonably certain that Harvard did the best with the data they were given. And the Ash Center used that data to create their little positive promotional brief well too. The research done by Harvard seems sound, as are my concerns about the validity of the collected data and my statement that this kind of data cannot be used to draw conclusions on the actual state of democracy or the actual workings of the government. Fuck it maybe I’ll just send the researchers an email about it tomorrow and see if they respond. I’ve gotten responses from physicists and mathematicians before, might be fun To be fair I doubt that would change your mind since you seem dead set on ignoring my actual argument. If they agree with me you’ll just say they’re producing propaganda for the western elites haha. But hey chances are the researcher will actually engage me in real discussion which would be nice permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 year ago (4 children) First, ethos is bullshit man, don’t idolize people or institutions to the point you think they’re infallible. Funny how stuff like this only applies when it's against the western narrative The researchers question the validity of their results because they are abnormally high a The western brainpan cannot comprehend a genuinely popular government permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] AnarchoEngineer@lemmy.dbzer0.com -3 points 1 year ago (3 children) Funny how stuff like this only applies when it’s against the western narrative This stuff applies always. It’s called critical thinking skills and it absolutely applies when someone is speaking “for the western narrative” too The western brain pan cannot comprehend a genuinely popular government Clearly you can’t comprehend elementary statistics like the central limit theorem lol And honestly god damn you tankies give communists and socialists such a bad name with all your braindead bullshit. Nothing talks me out of trusting china more than talking with you idiots Look I know it’s easy to think that there’s a singular big bad out there. That there’s just this one entity called “the west” and you’ll be able to fight and conquer it. It’s easier to believe things are black and white, that certain countries are innately good and others innately bad at all times. But that’s not reality. If you give into those kinds of delusions you’re not really better than the people who blindly believe in Trump or God etc. It’s easy believe that kind of blind faith because it’s less scary than admitting you might be wrong. We are driven to cling to the idea that there are hero’s out there, a righteous nation behind us fighting for good, someone we can always depend on, but if you don’t see reality as it is, you’re setting yourself up for more pain. Those feelings are opium not a cure, and often they hurt you and your causes too If you’re delusional people won’t believe what you say even if it’s true. So if you constantly go around attacking people with ad hominem, or claiming literally everything is western propaganda without actually providing evidence, you’re really just hurting the causes you’re trying to support Anyway dude, even if you didn’t actually engage my argument you did point me to a fascinating rabbit hole to go down, so thanks for that, but I think I’m going to disengage now I hope your days go well, and I wish you peace and happiness mate permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago* (1 child) This stuff applies always. It’s called critical thinking skills and it absolutely applies when someone is speaking “for the western narrative” too A Chinese source claiming Chinese are happy with their gvmnt doesn't hold as much materiality as a western source claiming that Chinese are happy with their government. (And vice versa) Do you even know what bias is? So much for cirtical thinking on your part Look I know it’s easy to think that there’s a singular big bad out there. That there’s just this one entity called “the west” and you’ll be able to fight and conquer it. It’s easier to believe things are black and white, that certain countries are innately good and others innately bad at all times. But that’s not reality. And you talk about strawman GTFO shitlib permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Micromot@piefed.social 2 points 1 year ago The commenter was questioning the validity of the organisation conducting the survey, which was weirdly not specifically mentioned in the research article. Saying that the data comes from some „reputable“ source is always very untrustworthy even when it’s regarding western countries. This just makes the science difficult to control/refute which is a necessary thing for good scientific research permalink fedilink source parent [–] techpeakedin1991@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago Clearly you can’t comprehend elementary statistics like the central limit theorem lol What? The central limit theorem states that if you take many averages of a distribution, the distribution of averages will be a normal distribution. What does that have to do with anything? Since the resulting normal distribution has a variance of sigma/n, the central limit theorem supports these kinds of polls, since they get more accurate as the number of responses increases. You know you can't just say the words 'central limit theorem' like it's some kind of magic spell right? Like you have to actually make an argument that uses the central limit theorem to support your conclusion. Unless you mean that stuff about outliers? But again, the underlying distributions for different countries are different, so the central limit theorem doesn't apply. There is a more general version of the theorem, but that has many preconditions for validity, so again, you have to show your work that it applies here. You are extremely arrogant for someone who doesn't understand statistics. And honestly god damn you tankies give communists and socialists such a bad name with all your braindead bullshit. Nothing talks me out of trusting china more than talking with you idiots Even if everyone here did have invalid arguments, trusting China less for someone on the internet having a bad argument is a fallacy fallacy. So much for your critical thinking skills. Look I know it’s easy to think that there’s a singular big bad out there. That there’s just this one entity called “the west” and you’ll be able to fight and conquer it. It’s easier to believe things are black and white, that certain countries are innately good and others innately bad at all times. But that’s not reality. Communists regularly criticize China, they criticize the actually bad parts about it, rather than the delusions that only exist in liberal minds, so if you're coming in here with "The ebil authoritarians" commies don't take a 'nuanced' outlook, because the situation has no nuance. What a massive strawman. So much for your critical thinking skills. If you give into those kinds of delusions you’re not really better than the people who blindly believe in Trump or God etc. It’s easy believe that kind of blind faith because it’s less scary than admitting you might be wrong. We are driven to cling to the idea that there are hero’s out there, a righteous nation behind us fighting for good, someone we can always depend on, but if you don’t see reality as it is, you’re setting yourself up for more pain. Once again, massive strawman. So much for your critical thinking skills. If you’re delusional people won’t believe what you say even if it’s true. So if you constantly go around attacking people with ad hominem, Just saying mean things isn't an ad hominem. If I say 'You're wrong because x, therefore you're stupid' that's just an insult. If I say 'You're wrong because you're stupid', that would be an ad hominem. So much for your critical thinking skills. Also real smart complaining about insults in the middle of a massive insulting screed. or claiming literally everything is western propaganda without actually providing evidence They did provide evidence. Not great evidence, but more evidence than anyone provided to claim that China is authoritarian, which is zero. So more than enough evidence for the situation, in other words. If any libs made more specific claims with more specific evidence, more specific counter evidence would have been provided. So much for your critical thinking skills. you’re really just hurting the causes you’re trying to support "You're just hurting your own cause" says the person who hates us and our cause. Anyway dude You know, getting overly familiar with someone you don't know during a disagreement by saying things like 'dude', 'bro' and 'buddy' comes off as massively disrespectful and arrogant. I hope your days go well, and I wish you peace and happiness mate Hell of a thing to say to someone you just insulted and belittled. I might almost think you're being disingenuous. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies)
[+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 15 points 1 year ago (11 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] AnarchoEngineer@lemmy.dbzer0.com -4 points 1 year ago (10 children) The only thing the questionnaire does, assuming it is built well, is show that when asked those questions people in different countries answered differently. Did the Chinese populations sampled by the study respond more positively to those four questions more than the samples of other nations? Yes. Can you assert that this is proof that china is more democratic and less authoritarian than those countries? NO. At best, this study shows that public opinion of the government in china is higher than that of the other countries. Which definitely doesn’t mean all that much at all, for example I could ask half my family members and they’d say that things are better now under trump than they’ve ever been before. Is that the case? Absolutely not. Does that change their minds? No. Now, the original article you linked seems much more soft science but the article it first mentions actually has more concrete data but still that data is on public opinion. Unfortunately the democracy index site appears to be missing and “for sale” If you could find me the actual questionnaire in mandarin so we could read it as it was presented and compare with the English version we could rule out some of the bias I presented earlier, but not all. Lastly, kairos buddy, your argument was that a country (which many of the people you’re trying to persuade think is George Orwell big brother level controlling) isn’t authoritarian. Using polled data, especially that which was “implemented by a reputable domestic Chinese polling firm” is not going to hold much evidentiary worth to your target audience. I’m not Anti-China, in fact I was and possibly still am thinking about taking a semester or internship out there; I only wanted to point out that you aren’t actually backing your argument up with any solid evidence especially with regards to your target audience. I really am curious about the test though, especially since the democracy index paper is on a dead site, so if you could find it in Mandarin I’d be interested. If you could find a source on what “reputable polling firm” Harvard used I’d be interested in that too since the report didn’t actually mention the name..? Oh and one last thing is that the article mentions “Furthermore, China outperforms the US and most European countries on these indicators – in fact, it has some of the strongest results in the world.” Fun statistical fact: outliers are a sign your sampling methodology is flawed, especially when the outliers are a set of samples and not just a singular data point. From just the “my government serves the people” bars alone, it would appear the Chinese dataset is well beyond 1.5 standard deviations if the other three are so much lower and show such low variation. If this was a single data point, one would throw it out, but considering it is supposedly a longitudinal collection of samples it implies that there is a very strong influencing factor that is only largely affecting the Chinese survey takers. If the pattern holds for many other metrics, then it implies this singular factor (or other factors) have significantly biased the Chinese samples. This doesn’t necessarily mean that factor is government intervention or bias from being raised in rhetoric from an authoritarian state, but it is statistically unlikely that this factor is simply due to china just somehow having a better democracy than every single country on earth (including all of its allies and enemies alike) by a statistically gigantic margin. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] techpeakedin1991@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) Fun statistical fact: outliers are a sign your sampling methodology is flawed, especially when the outliers are a set of samples and not just a singular data point. "This jet's speed is an outlier in this set of planes. Outliers mean the methodology must be invalid, so jets can't be faster than planes." This is nonsense. China and the euros have fundamentally different political systems, there is no reason to suppose they should have similar outcomes. The whole point of the discussion is that China's system is superior, if you say that any data that supports that is an outlier, and therefore must be invalid you're just presupposing your conclusion. On your other point about the usefulness of this data: while it is true that there can be many different explanations for the observed results, that just means that we need more evidence to show which system is more democratic, not that this evidence is useless. Saying that people's opinion of their own system is irrelevant is extremely chauvinistic. In the case of China, we can see the massive increase in quality of life of it's citizens, as well as a systematic overview of it's political structures like here. I've also heard the book Socialism with Chinese Characteristics: A Guide for Foreigners is good, but I haven't read it yet myself. Furthermore, your point about manipulation of public opinion goes the other way, too. Where did the idea that China is authoritarian come from? People going to China and studying what life is like there, or media manipulation? Who do you think is more likely to be manipulated like that, the people living there who actually experience the political structures of China, or rando westerners whos only source of information is capitalist media? A simple poll like this is more than enough to debunk the people who think China is authoritarian based on nothing but vibes from capitalist media. permalink fedilink source parent [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (8 children) https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/07/long-term-survey-reveals-chinese-government-satisfaction/ permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] AnarchoEngineer@lemmy.dbzer0.com -2 points 1 year ago (7 children) The study in that link is the same one from the last in the report they have the “implemented by a reputable domestic Chinese polling firm” line. The brief neither mentions the name of the polling organization nor does it list or link to the actual questions asked. Honestly seems odd given that it’s Harvard, then again isn’t meant to be a rigorous academic paper and I doubt the Chinese government would be up for letting more research be done if they had found negative associations. Still odd that they won’t name the firm anywhere. Like “The work began in 2003, and together with a leading private research and polling company in China, the team developed a series of questionnaires for in-person interviews.” what leading polling company? Wouldn’t they want their name attached to this? Also an in person questionnaire seems both much more qualitative and much less private than I would have expected. If you want to get people’s true anonymous opinions without any coercive bias, having them physically go somewhere and have to answer questions to an actual person is definitely not the best approach. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago (6 children) i don't trust Harvard as a source ok permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] AnarchoEngineer@lemmy.dbzer0.com -4 points 1 year ago* (5 children) Nice straw man. First, ethos is bullshit man, don’t idolize people or institutions to the point you think they’re infallible. Second, you aren’t making the same claim as the source. And I’m not contradicting it (Harvard’s research). The source rightfully states that their survey found high satisfaction in government, higher than in most other countries. The original paper is on how those reports seem to be increasingly positive overtime and show that development of rural areas correlates with increased reports of happiness in that survey. The researchers question the validity of their results because they are abnormally high and list possible other factors influencing the data. One of the researchers states that they believe the abnormally high levels are likely due other factors like the “highly positive news proliferated throughout the country” so I’m not doubting Harvard I’m actually agreeing with it Lastly, my concern over data collection doesn’t actually apply to Harvard. I’m reasonably certain that Harvard did the best with the data they were given. And the Ash Center used that data to create their little positive promotional brief well too. The research done by Harvard seems sound, as are my concerns about the validity of the collected data and my statement that this kind of data cannot be used to draw conclusions on the actual state of democracy or the actual workings of the government. Fuck it maybe I’ll just send the researchers an email about it tomorrow and see if they respond. I’ve gotten responses from physicists and mathematicians before, might be fun To be fair I doubt that would change your mind since you seem dead set on ignoring my actual argument. If they agree with me you’ll just say they’re producing propaganda for the western elites haha. But hey chances are the researcher will actually engage me in real discussion which would be nice permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 year ago (4 children) First, ethos is bullshit man, don’t idolize people or institutions to the point you think they’re infallible. Funny how stuff like this only applies when it's against the western narrative The researchers question the validity of their results because they are abnormally high a The western brainpan cannot comprehend a genuinely popular government permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] AnarchoEngineer@lemmy.dbzer0.com -3 points 1 year ago (3 children) Funny how stuff like this only applies when it’s against the western narrative This stuff applies always. It’s called critical thinking skills and it absolutely applies when someone is speaking “for the western narrative” too The western brain pan cannot comprehend a genuinely popular government Clearly you can’t comprehend elementary statistics like the central limit theorem lol And honestly god damn you tankies give communists and socialists such a bad name with all your braindead bullshit. Nothing talks me out of trusting china more than talking with you idiots Look I know it’s easy to think that there’s a singular big bad out there. That there’s just this one entity called “the west” and you’ll be able to fight and conquer it. It’s easier to believe things are black and white, that certain countries are innately good and others innately bad at all times. But that’s not reality. If you give into those kinds of delusions you’re not really better than the people who blindly believe in Trump or God etc. It’s easy believe that kind of blind faith because it’s less scary than admitting you might be wrong. We are driven to cling to the idea that there are hero’s out there, a righteous nation behind us fighting for good, someone we can always depend on, but if you don’t see reality as it is, you’re setting yourself up for more pain. Those feelings are opium not a cure, and often they hurt you and your causes too If you’re delusional people won’t believe what you say even if it’s true. So if you constantly go around attacking people with ad hominem, or claiming literally everything is western propaganda without actually providing evidence, you’re really just hurting the causes you’re trying to support Anyway dude, even if you didn’t actually engage my argument you did point me to a fascinating rabbit hole to go down, so thanks for that, but I think I’m going to disengage now I hope your days go well, and I wish you peace and happiness mate permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago* (1 child) This stuff applies always. It’s called critical thinking skills and it absolutely applies when someone is speaking “for the western narrative” too A Chinese source claiming Chinese are happy with their gvmnt doesn't hold as much materiality as a western source claiming that Chinese are happy with their government. (And vice versa) Do you even know what bias is? So much for cirtical thinking on your part Look I know it’s easy to think that there’s a singular big bad out there. That there’s just this one entity called “the west” and you’ll be able to fight and conquer it. It’s easier to believe things are black and white, that certain countries are innately good and others innately bad at all times. But that’s not reality. And you talk about strawman GTFO shitlib permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Micromot@piefed.social 2 points 1 year ago The commenter was questioning the validity of the organisation conducting the survey, which was weirdly not specifically mentioned in the research article. Saying that the data comes from some „reputable“ source is always very untrustworthy even when it’s regarding western countries. This just makes the science difficult to control/refute which is a necessary thing for good scientific research permalink fedilink source parent [–] techpeakedin1991@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago Clearly you can’t comprehend elementary statistics like the central limit theorem lol What? The central limit theorem states that if you take many averages of a distribution, the distribution of averages will be a normal distribution. What does that have to do with anything? Since the resulting normal distribution has a variance of sigma/n, the central limit theorem supports these kinds of polls, since they get more accurate as the number of responses increases. You know you can't just say the words 'central limit theorem' like it's some kind of magic spell right? Like you have to actually make an argument that uses the central limit theorem to support your conclusion. Unless you mean that stuff about outliers? But again, the underlying distributions for different countries are different, so the central limit theorem doesn't apply. There is a more general version of the theorem, but that has many preconditions for validity, so again, you have to show your work that it applies here. You are extremely arrogant for someone who doesn't understand statistics. And honestly god damn you tankies give communists and socialists such a bad name with all your braindead bullshit. Nothing talks me out of trusting china more than talking with you idiots Even if everyone here did have invalid arguments, trusting China less for someone on the internet having a bad argument is a fallacy fallacy. So much for your critical thinking skills. Look I know it’s easy to think that there’s a singular big bad out there. That there’s just this one entity called “the west” and you’ll be able to fight and conquer it. It’s easier to believe things are black and white, that certain countries are innately good and others innately bad at all times. But that’s not reality. Communists regularly criticize China, they criticize the actually bad parts about it, rather than the delusions that only exist in liberal minds, so if you're coming in here with "The ebil authoritarians" commies don't take a 'nuanced' outlook, because the situation has no nuance. What a massive strawman. So much for your critical thinking skills. If you give into those kinds of delusions you’re not really better than the people who blindly believe in Trump or God etc. It’s easy believe that kind of blind faith because it’s less scary than admitting you might be wrong. We are driven to cling to the idea that there are hero’s out there, a righteous nation behind us fighting for good, someone we can always depend on, but if you don’t see reality as it is, you’re setting yourself up for more pain. Once again, massive strawman. So much for your critical thinking skills. If you’re delusional people won’t believe what you say even if it’s true. So if you constantly go around attacking people with ad hominem, Just saying mean things isn't an ad hominem. If I say 'You're wrong because x, therefore you're stupid' that's just an insult. If I say 'You're wrong because you're stupid', that would be an ad hominem. So much for your critical thinking skills. Also real smart complaining about insults in the middle of a massive insulting screed. or claiming literally everything is western propaganda without actually providing evidence They did provide evidence. Not great evidence, but more evidence than anyone provided to claim that China is authoritarian, which is zero. So more than enough evidence for the situation, in other words. If any libs made more specific claims with more specific evidence, more specific counter evidence would have been provided. So much for your critical thinking skills. you’re really just hurting the causes you’re trying to support "You're just hurting your own cause" says the person who hates us and our cause. Anyway dude You know, getting overly familiar with someone you don't know during a disagreement by saying things like 'dude', 'bro' and 'buddy' comes off as massively disrespectful and arrogant. I hope your days go well, and I wish you peace and happiness mate Hell of a thing to say to someone you just insulted and belittled. I might almost think you're being disingenuous. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] AnarchoEngineer@lemmy.dbzer0.com -4 points 1 year ago (10 children) The only thing the questionnaire does, assuming it is built well, is show that when asked those questions people in different countries answered differently. Did the Chinese populations sampled by the study respond more positively to those four questions more than the samples of other nations? Yes. Can you assert that this is proof that china is more democratic and less authoritarian than those countries? NO. At best, this study shows that public opinion of the government in china is higher than that of the other countries. Which definitely doesn’t mean all that much at all, for example I could ask half my family members and they’d say that things are better now under trump than they’ve ever been before. Is that the case? Absolutely not. Does that change their minds? No. Now, the original article you linked seems much more soft science but the article it first mentions actually has more concrete data but still that data is on public opinion. Unfortunately the democracy index site appears to be missing and “for sale” If you could find me the actual questionnaire in mandarin so we could read it as it was presented and compare with the English version we could rule out some of the bias I presented earlier, but not all. Lastly, kairos buddy, your argument was that a country (which many of the people you’re trying to persuade think is George Orwell big brother level controlling) isn’t authoritarian. Using polled data, especially that which was “implemented by a reputable domestic Chinese polling firm” is not going to hold much evidentiary worth to your target audience. I’m not Anti-China, in fact I was and possibly still am thinking about taking a semester or internship out there; I only wanted to point out that you aren’t actually backing your argument up with any solid evidence especially with regards to your target audience. I really am curious about the test though, especially since the democracy index paper is on a dead site, so if you could find it in Mandarin I’d be interested. If you could find a source on what “reputable polling firm” Harvard used I’d be interested in that too since the report didn’t actually mention the name..? Oh and one last thing is that the article mentions “Furthermore, China outperforms the US and most European countries on these indicators – in fact, it has some of the strongest results in the world.” Fun statistical fact: outliers are a sign your sampling methodology is flawed, especially when the outliers are a set of samples and not just a singular data point. From just the “my government serves the people” bars alone, it would appear the Chinese dataset is well beyond 1.5 standard deviations if the other three are so much lower and show such low variation. If this was a single data point, one would throw it out, but considering it is supposedly a longitudinal collection of samples it implies that there is a very strong influencing factor that is only largely affecting the Chinese survey takers. If the pattern holds for many other metrics, then it implies this singular factor (or other factors) have significantly biased the Chinese samples. This doesn’t necessarily mean that factor is government intervention or bias from being raised in rhetoric from an authoritarian state, but it is statistically unlikely that this factor is simply due to china just somehow having a better democracy than every single country on earth (including all of its allies and enemies alike) by a statistically gigantic margin. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] techpeakedin1991@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) Fun statistical fact: outliers are a sign your sampling methodology is flawed, especially when the outliers are a set of samples and not just a singular data point. "This jet's speed is an outlier in this set of planes. Outliers mean the methodology must be invalid, so jets can't be faster than planes." This is nonsense. China and the euros have fundamentally different political systems, there is no reason to suppose they should have similar outcomes. The whole point of the discussion is that China's system is superior, if you say that any data that supports that is an outlier, and therefore must be invalid you're just presupposing your conclusion. On your other point about the usefulness of this data: while it is true that there can be many different explanations for the observed results, that just means that we need more evidence to show which system is more democratic, not that this evidence is useless. Saying that people's opinion of their own system is irrelevant is extremely chauvinistic. In the case of China, we can see the massive increase in quality of life of it's citizens, as well as a systematic overview of it's political structures like here. I've also heard the book Socialism with Chinese Characteristics: A Guide for Foreigners is good, but I haven't read it yet myself. Furthermore, your point about manipulation of public opinion goes the other way, too. Where did the idea that China is authoritarian come from? People going to China and studying what life is like there, or media manipulation? Who do you think is more likely to be manipulated like that, the people living there who actually experience the political structures of China, or rando westerners whos only source of information is capitalist media? A simple poll like this is more than enough to debunk the people who think China is authoritarian based on nothing but vibes from capitalist media. permalink fedilink source parent [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (8 children) https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/07/long-term-survey-reveals-chinese-government-satisfaction/ permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] AnarchoEngineer@lemmy.dbzer0.com -2 points 1 year ago (7 children) The study in that link is the same one from the last in the report they have the “implemented by a reputable domestic Chinese polling firm” line. The brief neither mentions the name of the polling organization nor does it list or link to the actual questions asked. Honestly seems odd given that it’s Harvard, then again isn’t meant to be a rigorous academic paper and I doubt the Chinese government would be up for letting more research be done if they had found negative associations. Still odd that they won’t name the firm anywhere. Like “The work began in 2003, and together with a leading private research and polling company in China, the team developed a series of questionnaires for in-person interviews.” what leading polling company? Wouldn’t they want their name attached to this? Also an in person questionnaire seems both much more qualitative and much less private than I would have expected. If you want to get people’s true anonymous opinions without any coercive bias, having them physically go somewhere and have to answer questions to an actual person is definitely not the best approach. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago (6 children) i don't trust Harvard as a source ok permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] AnarchoEngineer@lemmy.dbzer0.com -4 points 1 year ago* (5 children) Nice straw man. First, ethos is bullshit man, don’t idolize people or institutions to the point you think they’re infallible. Second, you aren’t making the same claim as the source. And I’m not contradicting it (Harvard’s research). The source rightfully states that their survey found high satisfaction in government, higher than in most other countries. The original paper is on how those reports seem to be increasingly positive overtime and show that development of rural areas correlates with increased reports of happiness in that survey. The researchers question the validity of their results because they are abnormally high and list possible other factors influencing the data. One of the researchers states that they believe the abnormally high levels are likely due other factors like the “highly positive news proliferated throughout the country” so I’m not doubting Harvard I’m actually agreeing with it Lastly, my concern over data collection doesn’t actually apply to Harvard. I’m reasonably certain that Harvard did the best with the data they were given. And the Ash Center used that data to create their little positive promotional brief well too. The research done by Harvard seems sound, as are my concerns about the validity of the collected data and my statement that this kind of data cannot be used to draw conclusions on the actual state of democracy or the actual workings of the government. Fuck it maybe I’ll just send the researchers an email about it tomorrow and see if they respond. I’ve gotten responses from physicists and mathematicians before, might be fun To be fair I doubt that would change your mind since you seem dead set on ignoring my actual argument. If they agree with me you’ll just say they’re producing propaganda for the western elites haha. But hey chances are the researcher will actually engage me in real discussion which would be nice permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 year ago (4 children) First, ethos is bullshit man, don’t idolize people or institutions to the point you think they’re infallible. Funny how stuff like this only applies when it's against the western narrative The researchers question the validity of their results because they are abnormally high a The western brainpan cannot comprehend a genuinely popular government permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] AnarchoEngineer@lemmy.dbzer0.com -3 points 1 year ago (3 children) Funny how stuff like this only applies when it’s against the western narrative This stuff applies always. It’s called critical thinking skills and it absolutely applies when someone is speaking “for the western narrative” too The western brain pan cannot comprehend a genuinely popular government Clearly you can’t comprehend elementary statistics like the central limit theorem lol And honestly god damn you tankies give communists and socialists such a bad name with all your braindead bullshit. Nothing talks me out of trusting china more than talking with you idiots Look I know it’s easy to think that there’s a singular big bad out there. That there’s just this one entity called “the west” and you’ll be able to fight and conquer it. It’s easier to believe things are black and white, that certain countries are innately good and others innately bad at all times. But that’s not reality. If you give into those kinds of delusions you’re not really better than the people who blindly believe in Trump or God etc. It’s easy believe that kind of blind faith because it’s less scary than admitting you might be wrong. We are driven to cling to the idea that there are hero’s out there, a righteous nation behind us fighting for good, someone we can always depend on, but if you don’t see reality as it is, you’re setting yourself up for more pain. Those feelings are opium not a cure, and often they hurt you and your causes too If you’re delusional people won’t believe what you say even if it’s true. So if you constantly go around attacking people with ad hominem, or claiming literally everything is western propaganda without actually providing evidence, you’re really just hurting the causes you’re trying to support Anyway dude, even if you didn’t actually engage my argument you did point me to a fascinating rabbit hole to go down, so thanks for that, but I think I’m going to disengage now I hope your days go well, and I wish you peace and happiness mate permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago* (1 child) This stuff applies always. It’s called critical thinking skills and it absolutely applies when someone is speaking “for the western narrative” too A Chinese source claiming Chinese are happy with their gvmnt doesn't hold as much materiality as a western source claiming that Chinese are happy with their government. (And vice versa) Do you even know what bias is? So much for cirtical thinking on your part Look I know it’s easy to think that there’s a singular big bad out there. That there’s just this one entity called “the west” and you’ll be able to fight and conquer it. It’s easier to believe things are black and white, that certain countries are innately good and others innately bad at all times. But that’s not reality. And you talk about strawman GTFO shitlib permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Micromot@piefed.social 2 points 1 year ago The commenter was questioning the validity of the organisation conducting the survey, which was weirdly not specifically mentioned in the research article. Saying that the data comes from some „reputable“ source is always very untrustworthy even when it’s regarding western countries. This just makes the science difficult to control/refute which is a necessary thing for good scientific research permalink fedilink source parent [–] techpeakedin1991@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago Clearly you can’t comprehend elementary statistics like the central limit theorem lol What? The central limit theorem states that if you take many averages of a distribution, the distribution of averages will be a normal distribution. What does that have to do with anything? Since the resulting normal distribution has a variance of sigma/n, the central limit theorem supports these kinds of polls, since they get more accurate as the number of responses increases. You know you can't just say the words 'central limit theorem' like it's some kind of magic spell right? Like you have to actually make an argument that uses the central limit theorem to support your conclusion. Unless you mean that stuff about outliers? But again, the underlying distributions for different countries are different, so the central limit theorem doesn't apply. There is a more general version of the theorem, but that has many preconditions for validity, so again, you have to show your work that it applies here. You are extremely arrogant for someone who doesn't understand statistics. And honestly god damn you tankies give communists and socialists such a bad name with all your braindead bullshit. Nothing talks me out of trusting china more than talking with you idiots Even if everyone here did have invalid arguments, trusting China less for someone on the internet having a bad argument is a fallacy fallacy. So much for your critical thinking skills. Look I know it’s easy to think that there’s a singular big bad out there. That there’s just this one entity called “the west” and you’ll be able to fight and conquer it. It’s easier to believe things are black and white, that certain countries are innately good and others innately bad at all times. But that’s not reality. Communists regularly criticize China, they criticize the actually bad parts about it, rather than the delusions that only exist in liberal minds, so if you're coming in here with "The ebil authoritarians" commies don't take a 'nuanced' outlook, because the situation has no nuance. What a massive strawman. So much for your critical thinking skills. If you give into those kinds of delusions you’re not really better than the people who blindly believe in Trump or God etc. It’s easy believe that kind of blind faith because it’s less scary than admitting you might be wrong. We are driven to cling to the idea that there are hero’s out there, a righteous nation behind us fighting for good, someone we can always depend on, but if you don’t see reality as it is, you’re setting yourself up for more pain. Once again, massive strawman. So much for your critical thinking skills. If you’re delusional people won’t believe what you say even if it’s true. So if you constantly go around attacking people with ad hominem, Just saying mean things isn't an ad hominem. If I say 'You're wrong because x, therefore you're stupid' that's just an insult. If I say 'You're wrong because you're stupid', that would be an ad hominem. So much for your critical thinking skills. Also real smart complaining about insults in the middle of a massive insulting screed. or claiming literally everything is western propaganda without actually providing evidence They did provide evidence. Not great evidence, but more evidence than anyone provided to claim that China is authoritarian, which is zero. So more than enough evidence for the situation, in other words. If any libs made more specific claims with more specific evidence, more specific counter evidence would have been provided. So much for your critical thinking skills. you’re really just hurting the causes you’re trying to support "You're just hurting your own cause" says the person who hates us and our cause. Anyway dude You know, getting overly familiar with someone you don't know during a disagreement by saying things like 'dude', 'bro' and 'buddy' comes off as massively disrespectful and arrogant. I hope your days go well, and I wish you peace and happiness mate Hell of a thing to say to someone you just insulted and belittled. I might almost think you're being disingenuous. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] techpeakedin1991@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) Fun statistical fact: outliers are a sign your sampling methodology is flawed, especially when the outliers are a set of samples and not just a singular data point. "This jet's speed is an outlier in this set of planes. Outliers mean the methodology must be invalid, so jets can't be faster than planes." This is nonsense. China and the euros have fundamentally different political systems, there is no reason to suppose they should have similar outcomes. The whole point of the discussion is that China's system is superior, if you say that any data that supports that is an outlier, and therefore must be invalid you're just presupposing your conclusion. On your other point about the usefulness of this data: while it is true that there can be many different explanations for the observed results, that just means that we need more evidence to show which system is more democratic, not that this evidence is useless. Saying that people's opinion of their own system is irrelevant is extremely chauvinistic. In the case of China, we can see the massive increase in quality of life of it's citizens, as well as a systematic overview of it's political structures like here. I've also heard the book Socialism with Chinese Characteristics: A Guide for Foreigners is good, but I haven't read it yet myself. Furthermore, your point about manipulation of public opinion goes the other way, too. Where did the idea that China is authoritarian come from? People going to China and studying what life is like there, or media manipulation? Who do you think is more likely to be manipulated like that, the people living there who actually experience the political structures of China, or rando westerners whos only source of information is capitalist media? A simple poll like this is more than enough to debunk the people who think China is authoritarian based on nothing but vibes from capitalist media. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (8 children) https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/07/long-term-survey-reveals-chinese-government-satisfaction/ permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] AnarchoEngineer@lemmy.dbzer0.com -2 points 1 year ago (7 children) The study in that link is the same one from the last in the report they have the “implemented by a reputable domestic Chinese polling firm” line. The brief neither mentions the name of the polling organization nor does it list or link to the actual questions asked. Honestly seems odd given that it’s Harvard, then again isn’t meant to be a rigorous academic paper and I doubt the Chinese government would be up for letting more research be done if they had found negative associations. Still odd that they won’t name the firm anywhere. Like “The work began in 2003, and together with a leading private research and polling company in China, the team developed a series of questionnaires for in-person interviews.” what leading polling company? Wouldn’t they want their name attached to this? Also an in person questionnaire seems both much more qualitative and much less private than I would have expected. If you want to get people’s true anonymous opinions without any coercive bias, having them physically go somewhere and have to answer questions to an actual person is definitely not the best approach. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago (6 children) i don't trust Harvard as a source ok permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] AnarchoEngineer@lemmy.dbzer0.com -4 points 1 year ago* (5 children) Nice straw man. First, ethos is bullshit man, don’t idolize people or institutions to the point you think they’re infallible. Second, you aren’t making the same claim as the source. And I’m not contradicting it (Harvard’s research). The source rightfully states that their survey found high satisfaction in government, higher than in most other countries. The original paper is on how those reports seem to be increasingly positive overtime and show that development of rural areas correlates with increased reports of happiness in that survey. The researchers question the validity of their results because they are abnormally high and list possible other factors influencing the data. One of the researchers states that they believe the abnormally high levels are likely due other factors like the “highly positive news proliferated throughout the country” so I’m not doubting Harvard I’m actually agreeing with it Lastly, my concern over data collection doesn’t actually apply to Harvard. I’m reasonably certain that Harvard did the best with the data they were given. And the Ash Center used that data to create their little positive promotional brief well too. The research done by Harvard seems sound, as are my concerns about the validity of the collected data and my statement that this kind of data cannot be used to draw conclusions on the actual state of democracy or the actual workings of the government. Fuck it maybe I’ll just send the researchers an email about it tomorrow and see if they respond. I’ve gotten responses from physicists and mathematicians before, might be fun To be fair I doubt that would change your mind since you seem dead set on ignoring my actual argument. If they agree with me you’ll just say they’re producing propaganda for the western elites haha. But hey chances are the researcher will actually engage me in real discussion which would be nice permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 year ago (4 children) First, ethos is bullshit man, don’t idolize people or institutions to the point you think they’re infallible. Funny how stuff like this only applies when it's against the western narrative The researchers question the validity of their results because they are abnormally high a The western brainpan cannot comprehend a genuinely popular government permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] AnarchoEngineer@lemmy.dbzer0.com -3 points 1 year ago (3 children) Funny how stuff like this only applies when it’s against the western narrative This stuff applies always. It’s called critical thinking skills and it absolutely applies when someone is speaking “for the western narrative” too The western brain pan cannot comprehend a genuinely popular government Clearly you can’t comprehend elementary statistics like the central limit theorem lol And honestly god damn you tankies give communists and socialists such a bad name with all your braindead bullshit. Nothing talks me out of trusting china more than talking with you idiots Look I know it’s easy to think that there’s a singular big bad out there. That there’s just this one entity called “the west” and you’ll be able to fight and conquer it. It’s easier to believe things are black and white, that certain countries are innately good and others innately bad at all times. But that’s not reality. If you give into those kinds of delusions you’re not really better than the people who blindly believe in Trump or God etc. It’s easy believe that kind of blind faith because it’s less scary than admitting you might be wrong. We are driven to cling to the idea that there are hero’s out there, a righteous nation behind us fighting for good, someone we can always depend on, but if you don’t see reality as it is, you’re setting yourself up for more pain. Those feelings are opium not a cure, and often they hurt you and your causes too If you’re delusional people won’t believe what you say even if it’s true. So if you constantly go around attacking people with ad hominem, or claiming literally everything is western propaganda without actually providing evidence, you’re really just hurting the causes you’re trying to support Anyway dude, even if you didn’t actually engage my argument you did point me to a fascinating rabbit hole to go down, so thanks for that, but I think I’m going to disengage now I hope your days go well, and I wish you peace and happiness mate permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago* (1 child) This stuff applies always. It’s called critical thinking skills and it absolutely applies when someone is speaking “for the western narrative” too A Chinese source claiming Chinese are happy with their gvmnt doesn't hold as much materiality as a western source claiming that Chinese are happy with their government. (And vice versa) Do you even know what bias is? So much for cirtical thinking on your part Look I know it’s easy to think that there’s a singular big bad out there. That there’s just this one entity called “the west” and you’ll be able to fight and conquer it. It’s easier to believe things are black and white, that certain countries are innately good and others innately bad at all times. But that’s not reality. And you talk about strawman GTFO shitlib permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Micromot@piefed.social 2 points 1 year ago The commenter was questioning the validity of the organisation conducting the survey, which was weirdly not specifically mentioned in the research article. Saying that the data comes from some „reputable“ source is always very untrustworthy even when it’s regarding western countries. This just makes the science difficult to control/refute which is a necessary thing for good scientific research permalink fedilink source parent [–] techpeakedin1991@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago Clearly you can’t comprehend elementary statistics like the central limit theorem lol What? The central limit theorem states that if you take many averages of a distribution, the distribution of averages will be a normal distribution. What does that have to do with anything? Since the resulting normal distribution has a variance of sigma/n, the central limit theorem supports these kinds of polls, since they get more accurate as the number of responses increases. You know you can't just say the words 'central limit theorem' like it's some kind of magic spell right? Like you have to actually make an argument that uses the central limit theorem to support your conclusion. Unless you mean that stuff about outliers? But again, the underlying distributions for different countries are different, so the central limit theorem doesn't apply. There is a more general version of the theorem, but that has many preconditions for validity, so again, you have to show your work that it applies here. You are extremely arrogant for someone who doesn't understand statistics. And honestly god damn you tankies give communists and socialists such a bad name with all your braindead bullshit. Nothing talks me out of trusting china more than talking with you idiots Even if everyone here did have invalid arguments, trusting China less for someone on the internet having a bad argument is a fallacy fallacy. So much for your critical thinking skills. Look I know it’s easy to think that there’s a singular big bad out there. That there’s just this one entity called “the west” and you’ll be able to fight and conquer it. It’s easier to believe things are black and white, that certain countries are innately good and others innately bad at all times. But that’s not reality. Communists regularly criticize China, they criticize the actually bad parts about it, rather than the delusions that only exist in liberal minds, so if you're coming in here with "The ebil authoritarians" commies don't take a 'nuanced' outlook, because the situation has no nuance. What a massive strawman. So much for your critical thinking skills. If you give into those kinds of delusions you’re not really better than the people who blindly believe in Trump or God etc. It’s easy believe that kind of blind faith because it’s less scary than admitting you might be wrong. We are driven to cling to the idea that there are hero’s out there, a righteous nation behind us fighting for good, someone we can always depend on, but if you don’t see reality as it is, you’re setting yourself up for more pain. Once again, massive strawman. So much for your critical thinking skills. If you’re delusional people won’t believe what you say even if it’s true. So if you constantly go around attacking people with ad hominem, Just saying mean things isn't an ad hominem. If I say 'You're wrong because x, therefore you're stupid' that's just an insult. If I say 'You're wrong because you're stupid', that would be an ad hominem. So much for your critical thinking skills. Also real smart complaining about insults in the middle of a massive insulting screed. or claiming literally everything is western propaganda without actually providing evidence They did provide evidence. Not great evidence, but more evidence than anyone provided to claim that China is authoritarian, which is zero. So more than enough evidence for the situation, in other words. If any libs made more specific claims with more specific evidence, more specific counter evidence would have been provided. So much for your critical thinking skills. you’re really just hurting the causes you’re trying to support "You're just hurting your own cause" says the person who hates us and our cause. Anyway dude You know, getting overly familiar with someone you don't know during a disagreement by saying things like 'dude', 'bro' and 'buddy' comes off as massively disrespectful and arrogant. I hope your days go well, and I wish you peace and happiness mate Hell of a thing to say to someone you just insulted and belittled. I might almost think you're being disingenuous. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] AnarchoEngineer@lemmy.dbzer0.com -2 points 1 year ago (7 children) The study in that link is the same one from the last in the report they have the “implemented by a reputable domestic Chinese polling firm” line. The brief neither mentions the name of the polling organization nor does it list or link to the actual questions asked. Honestly seems odd given that it’s Harvard, then again isn’t meant to be a rigorous academic paper and I doubt the Chinese government would be up for letting more research be done if they had found negative associations. Still odd that they won’t name the firm anywhere. Like “The work began in 2003, and together with a leading private research and polling company in China, the team developed a series of questionnaires for in-person interviews.” what leading polling company? Wouldn’t they want their name attached to this? Also an in person questionnaire seems both much more qualitative and much less private than I would have expected. If you want to get people’s true anonymous opinions without any coercive bias, having them physically go somewhere and have to answer questions to an actual person is definitely not the best approach. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago (6 children) i don't trust Harvard as a source ok permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] AnarchoEngineer@lemmy.dbzer0.com -4 points 1 year ago* (5 children) Nice straw man. First, ethos is bullshit man, don’t idolize people or institutions to the point you think they’re infallible. Second, you aren’t making the same claim as the source. And I’m not contradicting it (Harvard’s research). The source rightfully states that their survey found high satisfaction in government, higher than in most other countries. The original paper is on how those reports seem to be increasingly positive overtime and show that development of rural areas correlates with increased reports of happiness in that survey. The researchers question the validity of their results because they are abnormally high and list possible other factors influencing the data. One of the researchers states that they believe the abnormally high levels are likely due other factors like the “highly positive news proliferated throughout the country” so I’m not doubting Harvard I’m actually agreeing with it Lastly, my concern over data collection doesn’t actually apply to Harvard. I’m reasonably certain that Harvard did the best with the data they were given. And the Ash Center used that data to create their little positive promotional brief well too. The research done by Harvard seems sound, as are my concerns about the validity of the collected data and my statement that this kind of data cannot be used to draw conclusions on the actual state of democracy or the actual workings of the government. Fuck it maybe I’ll just send the researchers an email about it tomorrow and see if they respond. I’ve gotten responses from physicists and mathematicians before, might be fun To be fair I doubt that would change your mind since you seem dead set on ignoring my actual argument. If they agree with me you’ll just say they’re producing propaganda for the western elites haha. But hey chances are the researcher will actually engage me in real discussion which would be nice permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 year ago (4 children) First, ethos is bullshit man, don’t idolize people or institutions to the point you think they’re infallible. Funny how stuff like this only applies when it's against the western narrative The researchers question the validity of their results because they are abnormally high a The western brainpan cannot comprehend a genuinely popular government permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] AnarchoEngineer@lemmy.dbzer0.com -3 points 1 year ago (3 children) Funny how stuff like this only applies when it’s against the western narrative This stuff applies always. It’s called critical thinking skills and it absolutely applies when someone is speaking “for the western narrative” too The western brain pan cannot comprehend a genuinely popular government Clearly you can’t comprehend elementary statistics like the central limit theorem lol And honestly god damn you tankies give communists and socialists such a bad name with all your braindead bullshit. Nothing talks me out of trusting china more than talking with you idiots Look I know it’s easy to think that there’s a singular big bad out there. That there’s just this one entity called “the west” and you’ll be able to fight and conquer it. It’s easier to believe things are black and white, that certain countries are innately good and others innately bad at all times. But that’s not reality. If you give into those kinds of delusions you’re not really better than the people who blindly believe in Trump or God etc. It’s easy believe that kind of blind faith because it’s less scary than admitting you might be wrong. We are driven to cling to the idea that there are hero’s out there, a righteous nation behind us fighting for good, someone we can always depend on, but if you don’t see reality as it is, you’re setting yourself up for more pain. Those feelings are opium not a cure, and often they hurt you and your causes too If you’re delusional people won’t believe what you say even if it’s true. So if you constantly go around attacking people with ad hominem, or claiming literally everything is western propaganda without actually providing evidence, you’re really just hurting the causes you’re trying to support Anyway dude, even if you didn’t actually engage my argument you did point me to a fascinating rabbit hole to go down, so thanks for that, but I think I’m going to disengage now I hope your days go well, and I wish you peace and happiness mate permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago* (1 child) This stuff applies always. It’s called critical thinking skills and it absolutely applies when someone is speaking “for the western narrative” too A Chinese source claiming Chinese are happy with their gvmnt doesn't hold as much materiality as a western source claiming that Chinese are happy with their government. (And vice versa) Do you even know what bias is? So much for cirtical thinking on your part Look I know it’s easy to think that there’s a singular big bad out there. That there’s just this one entity called “the west” and you’ll be able to fight and conquer it. It’s easier to believe things are black and white, that certain countries are innately good and others innately bad at all times. But that’s not reality. And you talk about strawman GTFO shitlib permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Micromot@piefed.social 2 points 1 year ago The commenter was questioning the validity of the organisation conducting the survey, which was weirdly not specifically mentioned in the research article. Saying that the data comes from some „reputable“ source is always very untrustworthy even when it’s regarding western countries. This just makes the science difficult to control/refute which is a necessary thing for good scientific research permalink fedilink source parent [–] techpeakedin1991@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago Clearly you can’t comprehend elementary statistics like the central limit theorem lol What? The central limit theorem states that if you take many averages of a distribution, the distribution of averages will be a normal distribution. What does that have to do with anything? Since the resulting normal distribution has a variance of sigma/n, the central limit theorem supports these kinds of polls, since they get more accurate as the number of responses increases. You know you can't just say the words 'central limit theorem' like it's some kind of magic spell right? Like you have to actually make an argument that uses the central limit theorem to support your conclusion. Unless you mean that stuff about outliers? But again, the underlying distributions for different countries are different, so the central limit theorem doesn't apply. There is a more general version of the theorem, but that has many preconditions for validity, so again, you have to show your work that it applies here. You are extremely arrogant for someone who doesn't understand statistics. And honestly god damn you tankies give communists and socialists such a bad name with all your braindead bullshit. Nothing talks me out of trusting china more than talking with you idiots Even if everyone here did have invalid arguments, trusting China less for someone on the internet having a bad argument is a fallacy fallacy. So much for your critical thinking skills. Look I know it’s easy to think that there’s a singular big bad out there. That there’s just this one entity called “the west” and you’ll be able to fight and conquer it. It’s easier to believe things are black and white, that certain countries are innately good and others innately bad at all times. But that’s not reality. Communists regularly criticize China, they criticize the actually bad parts about it, rather than the delusions that only exist in liberal minds, so if you're coming in here with "The ebil authoritarians" commies don't take a 'nuanced' outlook, because the situation has no nuance. What a massive strawman. So much for your critical thinking skills. If you give into those kinds of delusions you’re not really better than the people who blindly believe in Trump or God etc. It’s easy believe that kind of blind faith because it’s less scary than admitting you might be wrong. We are driven to cling to the idea that there are hero’s out there, a righteous nation behind us fighting for good, someone we can always depend on, but if you don’t see reality as it is, you’re setting yourself up for more pain. Once again, massive strawman. So much for your critical thinking skills. If you’re delusional people won’t believe what you say even if it’s true. So if you constantly go around attacking people with ad hominem, Just saying mean things isn't an ad hominem. If I say 'You're wrong because x, therefore you're stupid' that's just an insult. If I say 'You're wrong because you're stupid', that would be an ad hominem. So much for your critical thinking skills. Also real smart complaining about insults in the middle of a massive insulting screed. or claiming literally everything is western propaganda without actually providing evidence They did provide evidence. Not great evidence, but more evidence than anyone provided to claim that China is authoritarian, which is zero. So more than enough evidence for the situation, in other words. If any libs made more specific claims with more specific evidence, more specific counter evidence would have been provided. So much for your critical thinking skills. you’re really just hurting the causes you’re trying to support "You're just hurting your own cause" says the person who hates us and our cause. Anyway dude You know, getting overly familiar with someone you don't know during a disagreement by saying things like 'dude', 'bro' and 'buddy' comes off as massively disrespectful and arrogant. I hope your days go well, and I wish you peace and happiness mate Hell of a thing to say to someone you just insulted and belittled. I might almost think you're being disingenuous. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago (6 children) i don't trust Harvard as a source ok permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] AnarchoEngineer@lemmy.dbzer0.com -4 points 1 year ago* (5 children) Nice straw man. First, ethos is bullshit man, don’t idolize people or institutions to the point you think they’re infallible. Second, you aren’t making the same claim as the source. And I’m not contradicting it (Harvard’s research). The source rightfully states that their survey found high satisfaction in government, higher than in most other countries. The original paper is on how those reports seem to be increasingly positive overtime and show that development of rural areas correlates with increased reports of happiness in that survey. The researchers question the validity of their results because they are abnormally high and list possible other factors influencing the data. One of the researchers states that they believe the abnormally high levels are likely due other factors like the “highly positive news proliferated throughout the country” so I’m not doubting Harvard I’m actually agreeing with it Lastly, my concern over data collection doesn’t actually apply to Harvard. I’m reasonably certain that Harvard did the best with the data they were given. And the Ash Center used that data to create their little positive promotional brief well too. The research done by Harvard seems sound, as are my concerns about the validity of the collected data and my statement that this kind of data cannot be used to draw conclusions on the actual state of democracy or the actual workings of the government. Fuck it maybe I’ll just send the researchers an email about it tomorrow and see if they respond. I’ve gotten responses from physicists and mathematicians before, might be fun To be fair I doubt that would change your mind since you seem dead set on ignoring my actual argument. If they agree with me you’ll just say they’re producing propaganda for the western elites haha. But hey chances are the researcher will actually engage me in real discussion which would be nice permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 year ago (4 children) First, ethos is bullshit man, don’t idolize people or institutions to the point you think they’re infallible. Funny how stuff like this only applies when it's against the western narrative The researchers question the validity of their results because they are abnormally high a The western brainpan cannot comprehend a genuinely popular government permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] AnarchoEngineer@lemmy.dbzer0.com -3 points 1 year ago (3 children) Funny how stuff like this only applies when it’s against the western narrative This stuff applies always. It’s called critical thinking skills and it absolutely applies when someone is speaking “for the western narrative” too The western brain pan cannot comprehend a genuinely popular government Clearly you can’t comprehend elementary statistics like the central limit theorem lol And honestly god damn you tankies give communists and socialists such a bad name with all your braindead bullshit. Nothing talks me out of trusting china more than talking with you idiots Look I know it’s easy to think that there’s a singular big bad out there. That there’s just this one entity called “the west” and you’ll be able to fight and conquer it. It’s easier to believe things are black and white, that certain countries are innately good and others innately bad at all times. But that’s not reality. If you give into those kinds of delusions you’re not really better than the people who blindly believe in Trump or God etc. It’s easy believe that kind of blind faith because it’s less scary than admitting you might be wrong. We are driven to cling to the idea that there are hero’s out there, a righteous nation behind us fighting for good, someone we can always depend on, but if you don’t see reality as it is, you’re setting yourself up for more pain. Those feelings are opium not a cure, and often they hurt you and your causes too If you’re delusional people won’t believe what you say even if it’s true. So if you constantly go around attacking people with ad hominem, or claiming literally everything is western propaganda without actually providing evidence, you’re really just hurting the causes you’re trying to support Anyway dude, even if you didn’t actually engage my argument you did point me to a fascinating rabbit hole to go down, so thanks for that, but I think I’m going to disengage now I hope your days go well, and I wish you peace and happiness mate permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago* (1 child) This stuff applies always. It’s called critical thinking skills and it absolutely applies when someone is speaking “for the western narrative” too A Chinese source claiming Chinese are happy with their gvmnt doesn't hold as much materiality as a western source claiming that Chinese are happy with their government. (And vice versa) Do you even know what bias is? So much for cirtical thinking on your part Look I know it’s easy to think that there’s a singular big bad out there. That there’s just this one entity called “the west” and you’ll be able to fight and conquer it. It’s easier to believe things are black and white, that certain countries are innately good and others innately bad at all times. But that’s not reality. And you talk about strawman GTFO shitlib permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Micromot@piefed.social 2 points 1 year ago The commenter was questioning the validity of the organisation conducting the survey, which was weirdly not specifically mentioned in the research article. Saying that the data comes from some „reputable“ source is always very untrustworthy even when it’s regarding western countries. This just makes the science difficult to control/refute which is a necessary thing for good scientific research permalink fedilink source parent [–] techpeakedin1991@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago Clearly you can’t comprehend elementary statistics like the central limit theorem lol What? The central limit theorem states that if you take many averages of a distribution, the distribution of averages will be a normal distribution. What does that have to do with anything? Since the resulting normal distribution has a variance of sigma/n, the central limit theorem supports these kinds of polls, since they get more accurate as the number of responses increases. You know you can't just say the words 'central limit theorem' like it's some kind of magic spell right? Like you have to actually make an argument that uses the central limit theorem to support your conclusion. Unless you mean that stuff about outliers? But again, the underlying distributions for different countries are different, so the central limit theorem doesn't apply. There is a more general version of the theorem, but that has many preconditions for validity, so again, you have to show your work that it applies here. You are extremely arrogant for someone who doesn't understand statistics. And honestly god damn you tankies give communists and socialists such a bad name with all your braindead bullshit. Nothing talks me out of trusting china more than talking with you idiots Even if everyone here did have invalid arguments, trusting China less for someone on the internet having a bad argument is a fallacy fallacy. So much for your critical thinking skills. Look I know it’s easy to think that there’s a singular big bad out there. That there’s just this one entity called “the west” and you’ll be able to fight and conquer it. It’s easier to believe things are black and white, that certain countries are innately good and others innately bad at all times. But that’s not reality. Communists regularly criticize China, they criticize the actually bad parts about it, rather than the delusions that only exist in liberal minds, so if you're coming in here with "The ebil authoritarians" commies don't take a 'nuanced' outlook, because the situation has no nuance. What a massive strawman. So much for your critical thinking skills. If you give into those kinds of delusions you’re not really better than the people who blindly believe in Trump or God etc. It’s easy believe that kind of blind faith because it’s less scary than admitting you might be wrong. We are driven to cling to the idea that there are hero’s out there, a righteous nation behind us fighting for good, someone we can always depend on, but if you don’t see reality as it is, you’re setting yourself up for more pain. Once again, massive strawman. So much for your critical thinking skills. If you’re delusional people won’t believe what you say even if it’s true. So if you constantly go around attacking people with ad hominem, Just saying mean things isn't an ad hominem. If I say 'You're wrong because x, therefore you're stupid' that's just an insult. If I say 'You're wrong because you're stupid', that would be an ad hominem. So much for your critical thinking skills. Also real smart complaining about insults in the middle of a massive insulting screed. or claiming literally everything is western propaganda without actually providing evidence They did provide evidence. Not great evidence, but more evidence than anyone provided to claim that China is authoritarian, which is zero. So more than enough evidence for the situation, in other words. If any libs made more specific claims with more specific evidence, more specific counter evidence would have been provided. So much for your critical thinking skills. you’re really just hurting the causes you’re trying to support "You're just hurting your own cause" says the person who hates us and our cause. Anyway dude You know, getting overly familiar with someone you don't know during a disagreement by saying things like 'dude', 'bro' and 'buddy' comes off as massively disrespectful and arrogant. I hope your days go well, and I wish you peace and happiness mate Hell of a thing to say to someone you just insulted and belittled. I might almost think you're being disingenuous. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] AnarchoEngineer@lemmy.dbzer0.com -4 points 1 year ago* (5 children) Nice straw man. First, ethos is bullshit man, don’t idolize people or institutions to the point you think they’re infallible. Second, you aren’t making the same claim as the source. And I’m not contradicting it (Harvard’s research). The source rightfully states that their survey found high satisfaction in government, higher than in most other countries. The original paper is on how those reports seem to be increasingly positive overtime and show that development of rural areas correlates with increased reports of happiness in that survey. The researchers question the validity of their results because they are abnormally high and list possible other factors influencing the data. One of the researchers states that they believe the abnormally high levels are likely due other factors like the “highly positive news proliferated throughout the country” so I’m not doubting Harvard I’m actually agreeing with it Lastly, my concern over data collection doesn’t actually apply to Harvard. I’m reasonably certain that Harvard did the best with the data they were given. And the Ash Center used that data to create their little positive promotional brief well too. The research done by Harvard seems sound, as are my concerns about the validity of the collected data and my statement that this kind of data cannot be used to draw conclusions on the actual state of democracy or the actual workings of the government. Fuck it maybe I’ll just send the researchers an email about it tomorrow and see if they respond. I’ve gotten responses from physicists and mathematicians before, might be fun To be fair I doubt that would change your mind since you seem dead set on ignoring my actual argument. If they agree with me you’ll just say they’re producing propaganda for the western elites haha. But hey chances are the researcher will actually engage me in real discussion which would be nice permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 year ago (4 children) First, ethos is bullshit man, don’t idolize people or institutions to the point you think they’re infallible. Funny how stuff like this only applies when it's against the western narrative The researchers question the validity of their results because they are abnormally high a The western brainpan cannot comprehend a genuinely popular government permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] AnarchoEngineer@lemmy.dbzer0.com -3 points 1 year ago (3 children) Funny how stuff like this only applies when it’s against the western narrative This stuff applies always. It’s called critical thinking skills and it absolutely applies when someone is speaking “for the western narrative” too The western brain pan cannot comprehend a genuinely popular government Clearly you can’t comprehend elementary statistics like the central limit theorem lol And honestly god damn you tankies give communists and socialists such a bad name with all your braindead bullshit. Nothing talks me out of trusting china more than talking with you idiots Look I know it’s easy to think that there’s a singular big bad out there. That there’s just this one entity called “the west” and you’ll be able to fight and conquer it. It’s easier to believe things are black and white, that certain countries are innately good and others innately bad at all times. But that’s not reality. If you give into those kinds of delusions you’re not really better than the people who blindly believe in Trump or God etc. It’s easy believe that kind of blind faith because it’s less scary than admitting you might be wrong. We are driven to cling to the idea that there are hero’s out there, a righteous nation behind us fighting for good, someone we can always depend on, but if you don’t see reality as it is, you’re setting yourself up for more pain. Those feelings are opium not a cure, and often they hurt you and your causes too If you’re delusional people won’t believe what you say even if it’s true. So if you constantly go around attacking people with ad hominem, or claiming literally everything is western propaganda without actually providing evidence, you’re really just hurting the causes you’re trying to support Anyway dude, even if you didn’t actually engage my argument you did point me to a fascinating rabbit hole to go down, so thanks for that, but I think I’m going to disengage now I hope your days go well, and I wish you peace and happiness mate permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago* (1 child) This stuff applies always. It’s called critical thinking skills and it absolutely applies when someone is speaking “for the western narrative” too A Chinese source claiming Chinese are happy with their gvmnt doesn't hold as much materiality as a western source claiming that Chinese are happy with their government. (And vice versa) Do you even know what bias is? So much for cirtical thinking on your part Look I know it’s easy to think that there’s a singular big bad out there. That there’s just this one entity called “the west” and you’ll be able to fight and conquer it. It’s easier to believe things are black and white, that certain countries are innately good and others innately bad at all times. But that’s not reality. And you talk about strawman GTFO shitlib permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Micromot@piefed.social 2 points 1 year ago The commenter was questioning the validity of the organisation conducting the survey, which was weirdly not specifically mentioned in the research article. Saying that the data comes from some „reputable“ source is always very untrustworthy even when it’s regarding western countries. This just makes the science difficult to control/refute which is a necessary thing for good scientific research permalink fedilink source parent [–] techpeakedin1991@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago Clearly you can’t comprehend elementary statistics like the central limit theorem lol What? The central limit theorem states that if you take many averages of a distribution, the distribution of averages will be a normal distribution. What does that have to do with anything? Since the resulting normal distribution has a variance of sigma/n, the central limit theorem supports these kinds of polls, since they get more accurate as the number of responses increases. You know you can't just say the words 'central limit theorem' like it's some kind of magic spell right? Like you have to actually make an argument that uses the central limit theorem to support your conclusion. Unless you mean that stuff about outliers? But again, the underlying distributions for different countries are different, so the central limit theorem doesn't apply. There is a more general version of the theorem, but that has many preconditions for validity, so again, you have to show your work that it applies here. You are extremely arrogant for someone who doesn't understand statistics. And honestly god damn you tankies give communists and socialists such a bad name with all your braindead bullshit. Nothing talks me out of trusting china more than talking with you idiots Even if everyone here did have invalid arguments, trusting China less for someone on the internet having a bad argument is a fallacy fallacy. So much for your critical thinking skills. Look I know it’s easy to think that there’s a singular big bad out there. That there’s just this one entity called “the west” and you’ll be able to fight and conquer it. It’s easier to believe things are black and white, that certain countries are innately good and others innately bad at all times. But that’s not reality. Communists regularly criticize China, they criticize the actually bad parts about it, rather than the delusions that only exist in liberal minds, so if you're coming in here with "The ebil authoritarians" commies don't take a 'nuanced' outlook, because the situation has no nuance. What a massive strawman. So much for your critical thinking skills. If you give into those kinds of delusions you’re not really better than the people who blindly believe in Trump or God etc. It’s easy believe that kind of blind faith because it’s less scary than admitting you might be wrong. We are driven to cling to the idea that there are hero’s out there, a righteous nation behind us fighting for good, someone we can always depend on, but if you don’t see reality as it is, you’re setting yourself up for more pain. Once again, massive strawman. So much for your critical thinking skills. If you’re delusional people won’t believe what you say even if it’s true. So if you constantly go around attacking people with ad hominem, Just saying mean things isn't an ad hominem. If I say 'You're wrong because x, therefore you're stupid' that's just an insult. If I say 'You're wrong because you're stupid', that would be an ad hominem. So much for your critical thinking skills. Also real smart complaining about insults in the middle of a massive insulting screed. or claiming literally everything is western propaganda without actually providing evidence They did provide evidence. Not great evidence, but more evidence than anyone provided to claim that China is authoritarian, which is zero. So more than enough evidence for the situation, in other words. If any libs made more specific claims with more specific evidence, more specific counter evidence would have been provided. So much for your critical thinking skills. you’re really just hurting the causes you’re trying to support "You're just hurting your own cause" says the person who hates us and our cause. Anyway dude You know, getting overly familiar with someone you don't know during a disagreement by saying things like 'dude', 'bro' and 'buddy' comes off as massively disrespectful and arrogant. I hope your days go well, and I wish you peace and happiness mate Hell of a thing to say to someone you just insulted and belittled. I might almost think you're being disingenuous. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 year ago (4 children) First, ethos is bullshit man, don’t idolize people or institutions to the point you think they’re infallible. Funny how stuff like this only applies when it's against the western narrative The researchers question the validity of their results because they are abnormally high a The western brainpan cannot comprehend a genuinely popular government permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] AnarchoEngineer@lemmy.dbzer0.com -3 points 1 year ago (3 children) Funny how stuff like this only applies when it’s against the western narrative This stuff applies always. It’s called critical thinking skills and it absolutely applies when someone is speaking “for the western narrative” too The western brain pan cannot comprehend a genuinely popular government Clearly you can’t comprehend elementary statistics like the central limit theorem lol And honestly god damn you tankies give communists and socialists such a bad name with all your braindead bullshit. Nothing talks me out of trusting china more than talking with you idiots Look I know it’s easy to think that there’s a singular big bad out there. That there’s just this one entity called “the west” and you’ll be able to fight and conquer it. It’s easier to believe things are black and white, that certain countries are innately good and others innately bad at all times. But that’s not reality. If you give into those kinds of delusions you’re not really better than the people who blindly believe in Trump or God etc. It’s easy believe that kind of blind faith because it’s less scary than admitting you might be wrong. We are driven to cling to the idea that there are hero’s out there, a righteous nation behind us fighting for good, someone we can always depend on, but if you don’t see reality as it is, you’re setting yourself up for more pain. Those feelings are opium not a cure, and often they hurt you and your causes too If you’re delusional people won’t believe what you say even if it’s true. So if you constantly go around attacking people with ad hominem, or claiming literally everything is western propaganda without actually providing evidence, you’re really just hurting the causes you’re trying to support Anyway dude, even if you didn’t actually engage my argument you did point me to a fascinating rabbit hole to go down, so thanks for that, but I think I’m going to disengage now I hope your days go well, and I wish you peace and happiness mate permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago* (1 child) This stuff applies always. It’s called critical thinking skills and it absolutely applies when someone is speaking “for the western narrative” too A Chinese source claiming Chinese are happy with their gvmnt doesn't hold as much materiality as a western source claiming that Chinese are happy with their government. (And vice versa) Do you even know what bias is? So much for cirtical thinking on your part Look I know it’s easy to think that there’s a singular big bad out there. That there’s just this one entity called “the west” and you’ll be able to fight and conquer it. It’s easier to believe things are black and white, that certain countries are innately good and others innately bad at all times. But that’s not reality. And you talk about strawman GTFO shitlib permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Micromot@piefed.social 2 points 1 year ago The commenter was questioning the validity of the organisation conducting the survey, which was weirdly not specifically mentioned in the research article. Saying that the data comes from some „reputable“ source is always very untrustworthy even when it’s regarding western countries. This just makes the science difficult to control/refute which is a necessary thing for good scientific research permalink fedilink source parent [–] techpeakedin1991@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago Clearly you can’t comprehend elementary statistics like the central limit theorem lol What? The central limit theorem states that if you take many averages of a distribution, the distribution of averages will be a normal distribution. What does that have to do with anything? Since the resulting normal distribution has a variance of sigma/n, the central limit theorem supports these kinds of polls, since they get more accurate as the number of responses increases. You know you can't just say the words 'central limit theorem' like it's some kind of magic spell right? Like you have to actually make an argument that uses the central limit theorem to support your conclusion. Unless you mean that stuff about outliers? But again, the underlying distributions for different countries are different, so the central limit theorem doesn't apply. There is a more general version of the theorem, but that has many preconditions for validity, so again, you have to show your work that it applies here. You are extremely arrogant for someone who doesn't understand statistics. And honestly god damn you tankies give communists and socialists such a bad name with all your braindead bullshit. Nothing talks me out of trusting china more than talking with you idiots Even if everyone here did have invalid arguments, trusting China less for someone on the internet having a bad argument is a fallacy fallacy. So much for your critical thinking skills. Look I know it’s easy to think that there’s a singular big bad out there. That there’s just this one entity called “the west” and you’ll be able to fight and conquer it. It’s easier to believe things are black and white, that certain countries are innately good and others innately bad at all times. But that’s not reality. Communists regularly criticize China, they criticize the actually bad parts about it, rather than the delusions that only exist in liberal minds, so if you're coming in here with "The ebil authoritarians" commies don't take a 'nuanced' outlook, because the situation has no nuance. What a massive strawman. So much for your critical thinking skills. If you give into those kinds of delusions you’re not really better than the people who blindly believe in Trump or God etc. It’s easy believe that kind of blind faith because it’s less scary than admitting you might be wrong. We are driven to cling to the idea that there are hero’s out there, a righteous nation behind us fighting for good, someone we can always depend on, but if you don’t see reality as it is, you’re setting yourself up for more pain. Once again, massive strawman. So much for your critical thinking skills. If you’re delusional people won’t believe what you say even if it’s true. So if you constantly go around attacking people with ad hominem, Just saying mean things isn't an ad hominem. If I say 'You're wrong because x, therefore you're stupid' that's just an insult. If I say 'You're wrong because you're stupid', that would be an ad hominem. So much for your critical thinking skills. Also real smart complaining about insults in the middle of a massive insulting screed. or claiming literally everything is western propaganda without actually providing evidence They did provide evidence. Not great evidence, but more evidence than anyone provided to claim that China is authoritarian, which is zero. So more than enough evidence for the situation, in other words. If any libs made more specific claims with more specific evidence, more specific counter evidence would have been provided. So much for your critical thinking skills. you’re really just hurting the causes you’re trying to support "You're just hurting your own cause" says the person who hates us and our cause. Anyway dude You know, getting overly familiar with someone you don't know during a disagreement by saying things like 'dude', 'bro' and 'buddy' comes off as massively disrespectful and arrogant. I hope your days go well, and I wish you peace and happiness mate Hell of a thing to say to someone you just insulted and belittled. I might almost think you're being disingenuous. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] AnarchoEngineer@lemmy.dbzer0.com -3 points 1 year ago (3 children) Funny how stuff like this only applies when it’s against the western narrative This stuff applies always. It’s called critical thinking skills and it absolutely applies when someone is speaking “for the western narrative” too The western brain pan cannot comprehend a genuinely popular government Clearly you can’t comprehend elementary statistics like the central limit theorem lol And honestly god damn you tankies give communists and socialists such a bad name with all your braindead bullshit. Nothing talks me out of trusting china more than talking with you idiots Look I know it’s easy to think that there’s a singular big bad out there. That there’s just this one entity called “the west” and you’ll be able to fight and conquer it. It’s easier to believe things are black and white, that certain countries are innately good and others innately bad at all times. But that’s not reality. If you give into those kinds of delusions you’re not really better than the people who blindly believe in Trump or God etc. It’s easy believe that kind of blind faith because it’s less scary than admitting you might be wrong. We are driven to cling to the idea that there are hero’s out there, a righteous nation behind us fighting for good, someone we can always depend on, but if you don’t see reality as it is, you’re setting yourself up for more pain. Those feelings are opium not a cure, and often they hurt you and your causes too If you’re delusional people won’t believe what you say even if it’s true. So if you constantly go around attacking people with ad hominem, or claiming literally everything is western propaganda without actually providing evidence, you’re really just hurting the causes you’re trying to support Anyway dude, even if you didn’t actually engage my argument you did point me to a fascinating rabbit hole to go down, so thanks for that, but I think I’m going to disengage now I hope your days go well, and I wish you peace and happiness mate permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago* (1 child) This stuff applies always. It’s called critical thinking skills and it absolutely applies when someone is speaking “for the western narrative” too A Chinese source claiming Chinese are happy with their gvmnt doesn't hold as much materiality as a western source claiming that Chinese are happy with their government. (And vice versa) Do you even know what bias is? So much for cirtical thinking on your part Look I know it’s easy to think that there’s a singular big bad out there. That there’s just this one entity called “the west” and you’ll be able to fight and conquer it. It’s easier to believe things are black and white, that certain countries are innately good and others innately bad at all times. But that’s not reality. And you talk about strawman GTFO shitlib permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Micromot@piefed.social 2 points 1 year ago The commenter was questioning the validity of the organisation conducting the survey, which was weirdly not specifically mentioned in the research article. Saying that the data comes from some „reputable“ source is always very untrustworthy even when it’s regarding western countries. This just makes the science difficult to control/refute which is a necessary thing for good scientific research permalink fedilink source parent [–] techpeakedin1991@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago Clearly you can’t comprehend elementary statistics like the central limit theorem lol What? The central limit theorem states that if you take many averages of a distribution, the distribution of averages will be a normal distribution. What does that have to do with anything? Since the resulting normal distribution has a variance of sigma/n, the central limit theorem supports these kinds of polls, since they get more accurate as the number of responses increases. You know you can't just say the words 'central limit theorem' like it's some kind of magic spell right? Like you have to actually make an argument that uses the central limit theorem to support your conclusion. Unless you mean that stuff about outliers? But again, the underlying distributions for different countries are different, so the central limit theorem doesn't apply. There is a more general version of the theorem, but that has many preconditions for validity, so again, you have to show your work that it applies here. You are extremely arrogant for someone who doesn't understand statistics. And honestly god damn you tankies give communists and socialists such a bad name with all your braindead bullshit. Nothing talks me out of trusting china more than talking with you idiots Even if everyone here did have invalid arguments, trusting China less for someone on the internet having a bad argument is a fallacy fallacy. So much for your critical thinking skills. Look I know it’s easy to think that there’s a singular big bad out there. That there’s just this one entity called “the west” and you’ll be able to fight and conquer it. It’s easier to believe things are black and white, that certain countries are innately good and others innately bad at all times. But that’s not reality. Communists regularly criticize China, they criticize the actually bad parts about it, rather than the delusions that only exist in liberal minds, so if you're coming in here with "The ebil authoritarians" commies don't take a 'nuanced' outlook, because the situation has no nuance. What a massive strawman. So much for your critical thinking skills. If you give into those kinds of delusions you’re not really better than the people who blindly believe in Trump or God etc. It’s easy believe that kind of blind faith because it’s less scary than admitting you might be wrong. We are driven to cling to the idea that there are hero’s out there, a righteous nation behind us fighting for good, someone we can always depend on, but if you don’t see reality as it is, you’re setting yourself up for more pain. Once again, massive strawman. So much for your critical thinking skills. If you’re delusional people won’t believe what you say even if it’s true. So if you constantly go around attacking people with ad hominem, Just saying mean things isn't an ad hominem. If I say 'You're wrong because x, therefore you're stupid' that's just an insult. If I say 'You're wrong because you're stupid', that would be an ad hominem. So much for your critical thinking skills. Also real smart complaining about insults in the middle of a massive insulting screed. or claiming literally everything is western propaganda without actually providing evidence They did provide evidence. Not great evidence, but more evidence than anyone provided to claim that China is authoritarian, which is zero. So more than enough evidence for the situation, in other words. If any libs made more specific claims with more specific evidence, more specific counter evidence would have been provided. So much for your critical thinking skills. you’re really just hurting the causes you’re trying to support "You're just hurting your own cause" says the person who hates us and our cause. Anyway dude You know, getting overly familiar with someone you don't know during a disagreement by saying things like 'dude', 'bro' and 'buddy' comes off as massively disrespectful and arrogant. I hope your days go well, and I wish you peace and happiness mate Hell of a thing to say to someone you just insulted and belittled. I might almost think you're being disingenuous. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago* (1 child) This stuff applies always. It’s called critical thinking skills and it absolutely applies when someone is speaking “for the western narrative” too A Chinese source claiming Chinese are happy with their gvmnt doesn't hold as much materiality as a western source claiming that Chinese are happy with their government. (And vice versa) Do you even know what bias is? So much for cirtical thinking on your part Look I know it’s easy to think that there’s a singular big bad out there. That there’s just this one entity called “the west” and you’ll be able to fight and conquer it. It’s easier to believe things are black and white, that certain countries are innately good and others innately bad at all times. But that’s not reality. And you talk about strawman GTFO shitlib permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Micromot@piefed.social 2 points 1 year ago The commenter was questioning the validity of the organisation conducting the survey, which was weirdly not specifically mentioned in the research article. Saying that the data comes from some „reputable“ source is always very untrustworthy even when it’s regarding western countries. This just makes the science difficult to control/refute which is a necessary thing for good scientific research permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Micromot@piefed.social 2 points 1 year ago The commenter was questioning the validity of the organisation conducting the survey, which was weirdly not specifically mentioned in the research article. Saying that the data comes from some „reputable“ source is always very untrustworthy even when it’s regarding western countries. This just makes the science difficult to control/refute which is a necessary thing for good scientific research permalink fedilink source parent
[–] techpeakedin1991@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago Clearly you can’t comprehend elementary statistics like the central limit theorem lol What? The central limit theorem states that if you take many averages of a distribution, the distribution of averages will be a normal distribution. What does that have to do with anything? Since the resulting normal distribution has a variance of sigma/n, the central limit theorem supports these kinds of polls, since they get more accurate as the number of responses increases. You know you can't just say the words 'central limit theorem' like it's some kind of magic spell right? Like you have to actually make an argument that uses the central limit theorem to support your conclusion. Unless you mean that stuff about outliers? But again, the underlying distributions for different countries are different, so the central limit theorem doesn't apply. There is a more general version of the theorem, but that has many preconditions for validity, so again, you have to show your work that it applies here. You are extremely arrogant for someone who doesn't understand statistics. And honestly god damn you tankies give communists and socialists such a bad name with all your braindead bullshit. Nothing talks me out of trusting china more than talking with you idiots Even if everyone here did have invalid arguments, trusting China less for someone on the internet having a bad argument is a fallacy fallacy. So much for your critical thinking skills. Look I know it’s easy to think that there’s a singular big bad out there. That there’s just this one entity called “the west” and you’ll be able to fight and conquer it. It’s easier to believe things are black and white, that certain countries are innately good and others innately bad at all times. But that’s not reality. Communists regularly criticize China, they criticize the actually bad parts about it, rather than the delusions that only exist in liberal minds, so if you're coming in here with "The ebil authoritarians" commies don't take a 'nuanced' outlook, because the situation has no nuance. What a massive strawman. So much for your critical thinking skills. If you give into those kinds of delusions you’re not really better than the people who blindly believe in Trump or God etc. It’s easy believe that kind of blind faith because it’s less scary than admitting you might be wrong. We are driven to cling to the idea that there are hero’s out there, a righteous nation behind us fighting for good, someone we can always depend on, but if you don’t see reality as it is, you’re setting yourself up for more pain. Once again, massive strawman. So much for your critical thinking skills. If you’re delusional people won’t believe what you say even if it’s true. So if you constantly go around attacking people with ad hominem, Just saying mean things isn't an ad hominem. If I say 'You're wrong because x, therefore you're stupid' that's just an insult. If I say 'You're wrong because you're stupid', that would be an ad hominem. So much for your critical thinking skills. Also real smart complaining about insults in the middle of a massive insulting screed. or claiming literally everything is western propaganda without actually providing evidence They did provide evidence. Not great evidence, but more evidence than anyone provided to claim that China is authoritarian, which is zero. So more than enough evidence for the situation, in other words. If any libs made more specific claims with more specific evidence, more specific counter evidence would have been provided. So much for your critical thinking skills. you’re really just hurting the causes you’re trying to support "You're just hurting your own cause" says the person who hates us and our cause. Anyway dude You know, getting overly familiar with someone you don't know during a disagreement by saying things like 'dude', 'bro' and 'buddy' comes off as massively disrespectful and arrogant. I hope your days go well, and I wish you peace and happiness mate Hell of a thing to say to someone you just insulted and belittled. I might almost think you're being disingenuous. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] zeezee@slrpnk.net 1 point 1 year ago So you consider a state censoring all it's citizens from discussing certain words and topics to not be authoritarian? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] chaos@beehaw.org -4 points 1 year ago (12 children) Okay, but we are talking about a country where you aren't allowed to form a political party that opposes the CCP, right? How can we tell the difference between "hell yeah, my country is making my life great" and "there is exactly one answer to this survey question that will not get me in trouble"? I always try to keep in mind that I am not immune to propaganda, but I've personally known Chinese people who have very explicitly declined to offer any criticism of the Chinese government or go against the party line, even in private conversation, because they didn't want trouble. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 15 points 1 year ago (8 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] chaos@beehaw.org -2 points 1 year ago (7 children) But it's also a ban on other socialist parties, not just capitalist ones, and it plays directly into the talking point that socialism is an authoritarian system that is imposed on people, not chosen on its merits. If the CCP really has enjoyed resounding, unwavering support from the proletariat for 75 years straight, why appear so weak by never allowing any competition whatsoever? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] ZeroHora@lemmy.ml 18 points 1 year ago (1 child) There are 8 other minor parties in China. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] chaos@beehaw.org 4 points 1 year ago Oh, c'mon. The PRC is officially organized under what the CCP terms a "system of multi-party cooperation and political consultation under the leadership of the CCP," in which the minor parties must accept the leadership of the CCP. permalink fedilink source parent [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 14 points 1 year ago (5 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (4 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] chaos@beehaw.org 0 points 1 year ago (3 children) I'm trying to get to how it's democratic and worker-controlled in your eyes because it's hard to see for me, as people don't seem to get to choose much in the system as designed. What's the mechanism for average people to change a government policy that they disagree with? If the party does start to lose touch with what the workers need or start working against their interests, how do the workers course-correct it? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (3 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] chaos@beehaw.org -1 points 1 year ago (2 children) But this doesn't answer my question, the only mechanism for people's input seems to be elections and polling, and it conspicuously omits the fact that elections only allow party-approved candidates. Maybe the powers-that-be have a great track record of listening and respecting the will of the people, and are beloved by all as a result, but that doesn't actually put the people in control, it just means the ones actually in control are being nice. When the government and the people have a fundamental disagreement about the path forward, what piece am I missing that makes the government the one to back down? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] chaos@beehaw.org 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Right, that's a good example of it going the way you describe, and I'm curious what would've happened if the government hadn't folded. If the people really are making the decisions, they would get their way eventually, what does that look like? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] chaos@beehaw.org 1 point 1 year ago Ah, I didn't see that edit, apologies, had the page loaded for a while before replying. Isn't that the same leverage that the earliest labor unions used because it was all they had? It seems to fit very well, actually. There's a smaller but more powerful group in charge of them, workers get little to no direct say in company policy or who they are managed by and have to hope they're listened to when asked how things are going. There certainly isn't a second C-suite waiting in the wings to be put into power if the first one disappoints, the current powers-that-be would be insane to allow something as chaotic as that. If the CEO's got a good track record of listening, the pay's pretty good and satisfaction is high, and they're kept in line with picket lines when it's necessary, is this company an extension of the working class like China's government is? I'm comparing and contrasting quite a bit with my new job, which fits much more closely with what my idea of something worker-controlled would be. It's fully employee owned, so profits go either back into the business or into our pockets as bonuses. There's as little hierarchy as possible, the closest thing to a manager isn't ever going to "put" you on a project, you're free to find one that you like and wants you to join. Company decisions involve everyone equally, and there's freedom to loudly speak your mind about policies and procedures if you disagree with them. That's closer to the country I'd want to live in, not the one where my influence is akin to answering corporate surveys and getting to choose which of 3 approved managers I want to work under, or go on strike if I'm really not happy. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) [–] Joncash2@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 year ago (3 children) They refuse to offer criticism to you, they will criticize the CCP constantly amongst themselves. They've sadly learned right or wrong that westerners are always trying to make China look bad. It's largely from western news like BBC. Just look up the phrase China, but at what cost. The most hilarious one I read was China is curing cancer fast, but at what cost. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] tyra@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 year ago permalink fedilink source parent [+] chaos@beehaw.org -7 points 1 year ago (1 child) I'm in awe of your ability to read minds, because that was not at all the vibe I got when I was actually in that conversation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Joncash2@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 year ago Of course not? If they gave you that impression then you would pry. As I said, it's pretty universal at this point. No mind reading needed. The fact that you were trying to do exactly what they're trying to avoid is hilarious to me. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies)
[+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 15 points 1 year ago (8 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] chaos@beehaw.org -2 points 1 year ago (7 children) But it's also a ban on other socialist parties, not just capitalist ones, and it plays directly into the talking point that socialism is an authoritarian system that is imposed on people, not chosen on its merits. If the CCP really has enjoyed resounding, unwavering support from the proletariat for 75 years straight, why appear so weak by never allowing any competition whatsoever? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] ZeroHora@lemmy.ml 18 points 1 year ago (1 child) There are 8 other minor parties in China. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] chaos@beehaw.org 4 points 1 year ago Oh, c'mon. The PRC is officially organized under what the CCP terms a "system of multi-party cooperation and political consultation under the leadership of the CCP," in which the minor parties must accept the leadership of the CCP. permalink fedilink source parent [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 14 points 1 year ago (5 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (4 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] chaos@beehaw.org 0 points 1 year ago (3 children) I'm trying to get to how it's democratic and worker-controlled in your eyes because it's hard to see for me, as people don't seem to get to choose much in the system as designed. What's the mechanism for average people to change a government policy that they disagree with? If the party does start to lose touch with what the workers need or start working against their interests, how do the workers course-correct it? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (3 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] chaos@beehaw.org -1 points 1 year ago (2 children) But this doesn't answer my question, the only mechanism for people's input seems to be elections and polling, and it conspicuously omits the fact that elections only allow party-approved candidates. Maybe the powers-that-be have a great track record of listening and respecting the will of the people, and are beloved by all as a result, but that doesn't actually put the people in control, it just means the ones actually in control are being nice. When the government and the people have a fundamental disagreement about the path forward, what piece am I missing that makes the government the one to back down? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] chaos@beehaw.org 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Right, that's a good example of it going the way you describe, and I'm curious what would've happened if the government hadn't folded. If the people really are making the decisions, they would get their way eventually, what does that look like? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] chaos@beehaw.org 1 point 1 year ago Ah, I didn't see that edit, apologies, had the page loaded for a while before replying. Isn't that the same leverage that the earliest labor unions used because it was all they had? It seems to fit very well, actually. There's a smaller but more powerful group in charge of them, workers get little to no direct say in company policy or who they are managed by and have to hope they're listened to when asked how things are going. There certainly isn't a second C-suite waiting in the wings to be put into power if the first one disappoints, the current powers-that-be would be insane to allow something as chaotic as that. If the CEO's got a good track record of listening, the pay's pretty good and satisfaction is high, and they're kept in line with picket lines when it's necessary, is this company an extension of the working class like China's government is? I'm comparing and contrasting quite a bit with my new job, which fits much more closely with what my idea of something worker-controlled would be. It's fully employee owned, so profits go either back into the business or into our pockets as bonuses. There's as little hierarchy as possible, the closest thing to a manager isn't ever going to "put" you on a project, you're free to find one that you like and wants you to join. Company decisions involve everyone equally, and there's freedom to loudly speak your mind about policies and procedures if you disagree with them. That's closer to the country I'd want to live in, not the one where my influence is akin to answering corporate surveys and getting to choose which of 3 approved managers I want to work under, or go on strike if I'm really not happy. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies)
[–] chaos@beehaw.org -2 points 1 year ago (7 children) But it's also a ban on other socialist parties, not just capitalist ones, and it plays directly into the talking point that socialism is an authoritarian system that is imposed on people, not chosen on its merits. If the CCP really has enjoyed resounding, unwavering support from the proletariat for 75 years straight, why appear so weak by never allowing any competition whatsoever? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] ZeroHora@lemmy.ml 18 points 1 year ago (1 child) There are 8 other minor parties in China. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] chaos@beehaw.org 4 points 1 year ago Oh, c'mon. The PRC is officially organized under what the CCP terms a "system of multi-party cooperation and political consultation under the leadership of the CCP," in which the minor parties must accept the leadership of the CCP. permalink fedilink source parent [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 14 points 1 year ago (5 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (4 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] chaos@beehaw.org 0 points 1 year ago (3 children) I'm trying to get to how it's democratic and worker-controlled in your eyes because it's hard to see for me, as people don't seem to get to choose much in the system as designed. What's the mechanism for average people to change a government policy that they disagree with? If the party does start to lose touch with what the workers need or start working against their interests, how do the workers course-correct it? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (3 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] chaos@beehaw.org -1 points 1 year ago (2 children) But this doesn't answer my question, the only mechanism for people's input seems to be elections and polling, and it conspicuously omits the fact that elections only allow party-approved candidates. Maybe the powers-that-be have a great track record of listening and respecting the will of the people, and are beloved by all as a result, but that doesn't actually put the people in control, it just means the ones actually in control are being nice. When the government and the people have a fundamental disagreement about the path forward, what piece am I missing that makes the government the one to back down? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] chaos@beehaw.org 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Right, that's a good example of it going the way you describe, and I'm curious what would've happened if the government hadn't folded. If the people really are making the decisions, they would get their way eventually, what does that look like? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] chaos@beehaw.org 1 point 1 year ago Ah, I didn't see that edit, apologies, had the page loaded for a while before replying. Isn't that the same leverage that the earliest labor unions used because it was all they had? It seems to fit very well, actually. There's a smaller but more powerful group in charge of them, workers get little to no direct say in company policy or who they are managed by and have to hope they're listened to when asked how things are going. There certainly isn't a second C-suite waiting in the wings to be put into power if the first one disappoints, the current powers-that-be would be insane to allow something as chaotic as that. If the CEO's got a good track record of listening, the pay's pretty good and satisfaction is high, and they're kept in line with picket lines when it's necessary, is this company an extension of the working class like China's government is? I'm comparing and contrasting quite a bit with my new job, which fits much more closely with what my idea of something worker-controlled would be. It's fully employee owned, so profits go either back into the business or into our pockets as bonuses. There's as little hierarchy as possible, the closest thing to a manager isn't ever going to "put" you on a project, you're free to find one that you like and wants you to join. Company decisions involve everyone equally, and there's freedom to loudly speak your mind about policies and procedures if you disagree with them. That's closer to the country I'd want to live in, not the one where my influence is akin to answering corporate surveys and getting to choose which of 3 approved managers I want to work under, or go on strike if I'm really not happy. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies)
[–] ZeroHora@lemmy.ml 18 points 1 year ago (1 child) There are 8 other minor parties in China. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] chaos@beehaw.org 4 points 1 year ago Oh, c'mon. The PRC is officially organized under what the CCP terms a "system of multi-party cooperation and political consultation under the leadership of the CCP," in which the minor parties must accept the leadership of the CCP. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] chaos@beehaw.org 4 points 1 year ago Oh, c'mon. The PRC is officially organized under what the CCP terms a "system of multi-party cooperation and political consultation under the leadership of the CCP," in which the minor parties must accept the leadership of the CCP. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 14 points 1 year ago (5 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (4 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] chaos@beehaw.org 0 points 1 year ago (3 children) I'm trying to get to how it's democratic and worker-controlled in your eyes because it's hard to see for me, as people don't seem to get to choose much in the system as designed. What's the mechanism for average people to change a government policy that they disagree with? If the party does start to lose touch with what the workers need or start working against their interests, how do the workers course-correct it? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (3 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] chaos@beehaw.org -1 points 1 year ago (2 children) But this doesn't answer my question, the only mechanism for people's input seems to be elections and polling, and it conspicuously omits the fact that elections only allow party-approved candidates. Maybe the powers-that-be have a great track record of listening and respecting the will of the people, and are beloved by all as a result, but that doesn't actually put the people in control, it just means the ones actually in control are being nice. When the government and the people have a fundamental disagreement about the path forward, what piece am I missing that makes the government the one to back down? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] chaos@beehaw.org 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Right, that's a good example of it going the way you describe, and I'm curious what would've happened if the government hadn't folded. If the people really are making the decisions, they would get their way eventually, what does that look like? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] chaos@beehaw.org 1 point 1 year ago Ah, I didn't see that edit, apologies, had the page loaded for a while before replying. Isn't that the same leverage that the earliest labor unions used because it was all they had? It seems to fit very well, actually. There's a smaller but more powerful group in charge of them, workers get little to no direct say in company policy or who they are managed by and have to hope they're listened to when asked how things are going. There certainly isn't a second C-suite waiting in the wings to be put into power if the first one disappoints, the current powers-that-be would be insane to allow something as chaotic as that. If the CEO's got a good track record of listening, the pay's pretty good and satisfaction is high, and they're kept in line with picket lines when it's necessary, is this company an extension of the working class like China's government is? I'm comparing and contrasting quite a bit with my new job, which fits much more closely with what my idea of something worker-controlled would be. It's fully employee owned, so profits go either back into the business or into our pockets as bonuses. There's as little hierarchy as possible, the closest thing to a manager isn't ever going to "put" you on a project, you're free to find one that you like and wants you to join. Company decisions involve everyone equally, and there's freedom to loudly speak your mind about policies and procedures if you disagree with them. That's closer to the country I'd want to live in, not the one where my influence is akin to answering corporate surveys and getting to choose which of 3 approved managers I want to work under, or go on strike if I'm really not happy. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies)
[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (4 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] chaos@beehaw.org 0 points 1 year ago (3 children) I'm trying to get to how it's democratic and worker-controlled in your eyes because it's hard to see for me, as people don't seem to get to choose much in the system as designed. What's the mechanism for average people to change a government policy that they disagree with? If the party does start to lose touch with what the workers need or start working against their interests, how do the workers course-correct it? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (3 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] chaos@beehaw.org -1 points 1 year ago (2 children) But this doesn't answer my question, the only mechanism for people's input seems to be elections and polling, and it conspicuously omits the fact that elections only allow party-approved candidates. Maybe the powers-that-be have a great track record of listening and respecting the will of the people, and are beloved by all as a result, but that doesn't actually put the people in control, it just means the ones actually in control are being nice. When the government and the people have a fundamental disagreement about the path forward, what piece am I missing that makes the government the one to back down? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] chaos@beehaw.org 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Right, that's a good example of it going the way you describe, and I'm curious what would've happened if the government hadn't folded. If the people really are making the decisions, they would get their way eventually, what does that look like? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] chaos@beehaw.org 1 point 1 year ago Ah, I didn't see that edit, apologies, had the page loaded for a while before replying. Isn't that the same leverage that the earliest labor unions used because it was all they had? It seems to fit very well, actually. There's a smaller but more powerful group in charge of them, workers get little to no direct say in company policy or who they are managed by and have to hope they're listened to when asked how things are going. There certainly isn't a second C-suite waiting in the wings to be put into power if the first one disappoints, the current powers-that-be would be insane to allow something as chaotic as that. If the CEO's got a good track record of listening, the pay's pretty good and satisfaction is high, and they're kept in line with picket lines when it's necessary, is this company an extension of the working class like China's government is? I'm comparing and contrasting quite a bit with my new job, which fits much more closely with what my idea of something worker-controlled would be. It's fully employee owned, so profits go either back into the business or into our pockets as bonuses. There's as little hierarchy as possible, the closest thing to a manager isn't ever going to "put" you on a project, you're free to find one that you like and wants you to join. Company decisions involve everyone equally, and there's freedom to loudly speak your mind about policies and procedures if you disagree with them. That's closer to the country I'd want to live in, not the one where my influence is akin to answering corporate surveys and getting to choose which of 3 approved managers I want to work under, or go on strike if I'm really not happy. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies)
[+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (4 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] chaos@beehaw.org 0 points 1 year ago (3 children) I'm trying to get to how it's democratic and worker-controlled in your eyes because it's hard to see for me, as people don't seem to get to choose much in the system as designed. What's the mechanism for average people to change a government policy that they disagree with? If the party does start to lose touch with what the workers need or start working against their interests, how do the workers course-correct it? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (3 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] chaos@beehaw.org -1 points 1 year ago (2 children) But this doesn't answer my question, the only mechanism for people's input seems to be elections and polling, and it conspicuously omits the fact that elections only allow party-approved candidates. Maybe the powers-that-be have a great track record of listening and respecting the will of the people, and are beloved by all as a result, but that doesn't actually put the people in control, it just means the ones actually in control are being nice. When the government and the people have a fundamental disagreement about the path forward, what piece am I missing that makes the government the one to back down? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] chaos@beehaw.org 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Right, that's a good example of it going the way you describe, and I'm curious what would've happened if the government hadn't folded. If the people really are making the decisions, they would get their way eventually, what does that look like? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] chaos@beehaw.org 1 point 1 year ago Ah, I didn't see that edit, apologies, had the page loaded for a while before replying. Isn't that the same leverage that the earliest labor unions used because it was all they had? It seems to fit very well, actually. There's a smaller but more powerful group in charge of them, workers get little to no direct say in company policy or who they are managed by and have to hope they're listened to when asked how things are going. There certainly isn't a second C-suite waiting in the wings to be put into power if the first one disappoints, the current powers-that-be would be insane to allow something as chaotic as that. If the CEO's got a good track record of listening, the pay's pretty good and satisfaction is high, and they're kept in line with picket lines when it's necessary, is this company an extension of the working class like China's government is? I'm comparing and contrasting quite a bit with my new job, which fits much more closely with what my idea of something worker-controlled would be. It's fully employee owned, so profits go either back into the business or into our pockets as bonuses. There's as little hierarchy as possible, the closest thing to a manager isn't ever going to "put" you on a project, you're free to find one that you like and wants you to join. Company decisions involve everyone equally, and there's freedom to loudly speak your mind about policies and procedures if you disagree with them. That's closer to the country I'd want to live in, not the one where my influence is akin to answering corporate surveys and getting to choose which of 3 approved managers I want to work under, or go on strike if I'm really not happy. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies)
[–] chaos@beehaw.org 0 points 1 year ago (3 children) I'm trying to get to how it's democratic and worker-controlled in your eyes because it's hard to see for me, as people don't seem to get to choose much in the system as designed. What's the mechanism for average people to change a government policy that they disagree with? If the party does start to lose touch with what the workers need or start working against their interests, how do the workers course-correct it? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (3 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] chaos@beehaw.org -1 points 1 year ago (2 children) But this doesn't answer my question, the only mechanism for people's input seems to be elections and polling, and it conspicuously omits the fact that elections only allow party-approved candidates. Maybe the powers-that-be have a great track record of listening and respecting the will of the people, and are beloved by all as a result, but that doesn't actually put the people in control, it just means the ones actually in control are being nice. When the government and the people have a fundamental disagreement about the path forward, what piece am I missing that makes the government the one to back down? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] chaos@beehaw.org 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Right, that's a good example of it going the way you describe, and I'm curious what would've happened if the government hadn't folded. If the people really are making the decisions, they would get their way eventually, what does that look like? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] chaos@beehaw.org 1 point 1 year ago Ah, I didn't see that edit, apologies, had the page loaded for a while before replying. Isn't that the same leverage that the earliest labor unions used because it was all they had? It seems to fit very well, actually. There's a smaller but more powerful group in charge of them, workers get little to no direct say in company policy or who they are managed by and have to hope they're listened to when asked how things are going. There certainly isn't a second C-suite waiting in the wings to be put into power if the first one disappoints, the current powers-that-be would be insane to allow something as chaotic as that. If the CEO's got a good track record of listening, the pay's pretty good and satisfaction is high, and they're kept in line with picket lines when it's necessary, is this company an extension of the working class like China's government is? I'm comparing and contrasting quite a bit with my new job, which fits much more closely with what my idea of something worker-controlled would be. It's fully employee owned, so profits go either back into the business or into our pockets as bonuses. There's as little hierarchy as possible, the closest thing to a manager isn't ever going to "put" you on a project, you're free to find one that you like and wants you to join. Company decisions involve everyone equally, and there's freedom to loudly speak your mind about policies and procedures if you disagree with them. That's closer to the country I'd want to live in, not the one where my influence is akin to answering corporate surveys and getting to choose which of 3 approved managers I want to work under, or go on strike if I'm really not happy. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies)
[+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (3 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] chaos@beehaw.org -1 points 1 year ago (2 children) But this doesn't answer my question, the only mechanism for people's input seems to be elections and polling, and it conspicuously omits the fact that elections only allow party-approved candidates. Maybe the powers-that-be have a great track record of listening and respecting the will of the people, and are beloved by all as a result, but that doesn't actually put the people in control, it just means the ones actually in control are being nice. When the government and the people have a fundamental disagreement about the path forward, what piece am I missing that makes the government the one to back down? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] chaos@beehaw.org 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Right, that's a good example of it going the way you describe, and I'm curious what would've happened if the government hadn't folded. If the people really are making the decisions, they would get their way eventually, what does that look like? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] chaos@beehaw.org 1 point 1 year ago Ah, I didn't see that edit, apologies, had the page loaded for a while before replying. Isn't that the same leverage that the earliest labor unions used because it was all they had? It seems to fit very well, actually. There's a smaller but more powerful group in charge of them, workers get little to no direct say in company policy or who they are managed by and have to hope they're listened to when asked how things are going. There certainly isn't a second C-suite waiting in the wings to be put into power if the first one disappoints, the current powers-that-be would be insane to allow something as chaotic as that. If the CEO's got a good track record of listening, the pay's pretty good and satisfaction is high, and they're kept in line with picket lines when it's necessary, is this company an extension of the working class like China's government is? I'm comparing and contrasting quite a bit with my new job, which fits much more closely with what my idea of something worker-controlled would be. It's fully employee owned, so profits go either back into the business or into our pockets as bonuses. There's as little hierarchy as possible, the closest thing to a manager isn't ever going to "put" you on a project, you're free to find one that you like and wants you to join. Company decisions involve everyone equally, and there's freedom to loudly speak your mind about policies and procedures if you disagree with them. That's closer to the country I'd want to live in, not the one where my influence is akin to answering corporate surveys and getting to choose which of 3 approved managers I want to work under, or go on strike if I'm really not happy. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies)
[–] chaos@beehaw.org -1 points 1 year ago (2 children) But this doesn't answer my question, the only mechanism for people's input seems to be elections and polling, and it conspicuously omits the fact that elections only allow party-approved candidates. Maybe the powers-that-be have a great track record of listening and respecting the will of the people, and are beloved by all as a result, but that doesn't actually put the people in control, it just means the ones actually in control are being nice. When the government and the people have a fundamental disagreement about the path forward, what piece am I missing that makes the government the one to back down? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] chaos@beehaw.org 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Right, that's a good example of it going the way you describe, and I'm curious what would've happened if the government hadn't folded. If the people really are making the decisions, they would get their way eventually, what does that look like? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] chaos@beehaw.org 1 point 1 year ago Ah, I didn't see that edit, apologies, had the page loaded for a while before replying. Isn't that the same leverage that the earliest labor unions used because it was all they had? It seems to fit very well, actually. There's a smaller but more powerful group in charge of them, workers get little to no direct say in company policy or who they are managed by and have to hope they're listened to when asked how things are going. There certainly isn't a second C-suite waiting in the wings to be put into power if the first one disappoints, the current powers-that-be would be insane to allow something as chaotic as that. If the CEO's got a good track record of listening, the pay's pretty good and satisfaction is high, and they're kept in line with picket lines when it's necessary, is this company an extension of the working class like China's government is? I'm comparing and contrasting quite a bit with my new job, which fits much more closely with what my idea of something worker-controlled would be. It's fully employee owned, so profits go either back into the business or into our pockets as bonuses. There's as little hierarchy as possible, the closest thing to a manager isn't ever going to "put" you on a project, you're free to find one that you like and wants you to join. Company decisions involve everyone equally, and there's freedom to loudly speak your mind about policies and procedures if you disagree with them. That's closer to the country I'd want to live in, not the one where my influence is akin to answering corporate surveys and getting to choose which of 3 approved managers I want to work under, or go on strike if I'm really not happy. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies)
[+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] chaos@beehaw.org 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Right, that's a good example of it going the way you describe, and I'm curious what would've happened if the government hadn't folded. If the people really are making the decisions, they would get their way eventually, what does that look like? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] chaos@beehaw.org 1 point 1 year ago Ah, I didn't see that edit, apologies, had the page loaded for a while before replying. Isn't that the same leverage that the earliest labor unions used because it was all they had? It seems to fit very well, actually. There's a smaller but more powerful group in charge of them, workers get little to no direct say in company policy or who they are managed by and have to hope they're listened to when asked how things are going. There certainly isn't a second C-suite waiting in the wings to be put into power if the first one disappoints, the current powers-that-be would be insane to allow something as chaotic as that. If the CEO's got a good track record of listening, the pay's pretty good and satisfaction is high, and they're kept in line with picket lines when it's necessary, is this company an extension of the working class like China's government is? I'm comparing and contrasting quite a bit with my new job, which fits much more closely with what my idea of something worker-controlled would be. It's fully employee owned, so profits go either back into the business or into our pockets as bonuses. There's as little hierarchy as possible, the closest thing to a manager isn't ever going to "put" you on a project, you're free to find one that you like and wants you to join. Company decisions involve everyone equally, and there's freedom to loudly speak your mind about policies and procedures if you disagree with them. That's closer to the country I'd want to live in, not the one where my influence is akin to answering corporate surveys and getting to choose which of 3 approved managers I want to work under, or go on strike if I'm really not happy. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies)
[–] chaos@beehaw.org 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Right, that's a good example of it going the way you describe, and I'm curious what would've happened if the government hadn't folded. If the people really are making the decisions, they would get their way eventually, what does that look like? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] chaos@beehaw.org 1 point 1 year ago Ah, I didn't see that edit, apologies, had the page loaded for a while before replying. Isn't that the same leverage that the earliest labor unions used because it was all they had? It seems to fit very well, actually. There's a smaller but more powerful group in charge of them, workers get little to no direct say in company policy or who they are managed by and have to hope they're listened to when asked how things are going. There certainly isn't a second C-suite waiting in the wings to be put into power if the first one disappoints, the current powers-that-be would be insane to allow something as chaotic as that. If the CEO's got a good track record of listening, the pay's pretty good and satisfaction is high, and they're kept in line with picket lines when it's necessary, is this company an extension of the working class like China's government is? I'm comparing and contrasting quite a bit with my new job, which fits much more closely with what my idea of something worker-controlled would be. It's fully employee owned, so profits go either back into the business or into our pockets as bonuses. There's as little hierarchy as possible, the closest thing to a manager isn't ever going to "put" you on a project, you're free to find one that you like and wants you to join. Company decisions involve everyone equally, and there's freedom to loudly speak your mind about policies and procedures if you disagree with them. That's closer to the country I'd want to live in, not the one where my influence is akin to answering corporate surveys and getting to choose which of 3 approved managers I want to work under, or go on strike if I'm really not happy. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies)
[+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] chaos@beehaw.org 1 point 1 year ago Ah, I didn't see that edit, apologies, had the page loaded for a while before replying. Isn't that the same leverage that the earliest labor unions used because it was all they had? It seems to fit very well, actually. There's a smaller but more powerful group in charge of them, workers get little to no direct say in company policy or who they are managed by and have to hope they're listened to when asked how things are going. There certainly isn't a second C-suite waiting in the wings to be put into power if the first one disappoints, the current powers-that-be would be insane to allow something as chaotic as that. If the CEO's got a good track record of listening, the pay's pretty good and satisfaction is high, and they're kept in line with picket lines when it's necessary, is this company an extension of the working class like China's government is? I'm comparing and contrasting quite a bit with my new job, which fits much more closely with what my idea of something worker-controlled would be. It's fully employee owned, so profits go either back into the business or into our pockets as bonuses. There's as little hierarchy as possible, the closest thing to a manager isn't ever going to "put" you on a project, you're free to find one that you like and wants you to join. Company decisions involve everyone equally, and there's freedom to loudly speak your mind about policies and procedures if you disagree with them. That's closer to the country I'd want to live in, not the one where my influence is akin to answering corporate surveys and getting to choose which of 3 approved managers I want to work under, or go on strike if I'm really not happy. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] chaos@beehaw.org 1 point 1 year ago Ah, I didn't see that edit, apologies, had the page loaded for a while before replying. Isn't that the same leverage that the earliest labor unions used because it was all they had? It seems to fit very well, actually. There's a smaller but more powerful group in charge of them, workers get little to no direct say in company policy or who they are managed by and have to hope they're listened to when asked how things are going. There certainly isn't a second C-suite waiting in the wings to be put into power if the first one disappoints, the current powers-that-be would be insane to allow something as chaotic as that. If the CEO's got a good track record of listening, the pay's pretty good and satisfaction is high, and they're kept in line with picket lines when it's necessary, is this company an extension of the working class like China's government is? I'm comparing and contrasting quite a bit with my new job, which fits much more closely with what my idea of something worker-controlled would be. It's fully employee owned, so profits go either back into the business or into our pockets as bonuses. There's as little hierarchy as possible, the closest thing to a manager isn't ever going to "put" you on a project, you're free to find one that you like and wants you to join. Company decisions involve everyone equally, and there's freedom to loudly speak your mind about policies and procedures if you disagree with them. That's closer to the country I'd want to live in, not the one where my influence is akin to answering corporate surveys and getting to choose which of 3 approved managers I want to work under, or go on strike if I'm really not happy. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Joncash2@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 year ago (3 children) They refuse to offer criticism to you, they will criticize the CCP constantly amongst themselves. They've sadly learned right or wrong that westerners are always trying to make China look bad. It's largely from western news like BBC. Just look up the phrase China, but at what cost. The most hilarious one I read was China is curing cancer fast, but at what cost. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] tyra@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 year ago permalink fedilink source parent [+] chaos@beehaw.org -7 points 1 year ago (1 child) I'm in awe of your ability to read minds, because that was not at all the vibe I got when I was actually in that conversation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Joncash2@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 year ago Of course not? If they gave you that impression then you would pry. As I said, it's pretty universal at this point. No mind reading needed. The fact that you were trying to do exactly what they're trying to avoid is hilarious to me. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] chaos@beehaw.org -7 points 1 year ago (1 child) I'm in awe of your ability to read minds, because that was not at all the vibe I got when I was actually in that conversation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Joncash2@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 year ago Of course not? If they gave you that impression then you would pry. As I said, it's pretty universal at this point. No mind reading needed. The fact that you were trying to do exactly what they're trying to avoid is hilarious to me. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Joncash2@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 year ago Of course not? If they gave you that impression then you would pry. As I said, it's pretty universal at this point. No mind reading needed. The fact that you were trying to do exactly what they're trying to avoid is hilarious to me. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] MisterFrog@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago I'm a big defender of China when the "China Bad" crowd comes out, but this graph is meaningless beyond what people's perceptions are. Real trade unions are banned. All must be part of the party, workers rights are routinely not enforced, and given the lattitude the government has to act, there isn't really much of an excuse. The CCP enjoy massive support, though, this is undeniable. The reasons for this support is debatable and vary from person to person. I for one, very much enjoy when the Chinese government does things in line with my socialist ideals. But let's not pretend like they're actually keeping the capitalists in check. There are many, many billionaires in China, something that ought not be possible under an actual socialist country. It doesn't take a genius to look at their system of voting to quickly conclude that you don't really have a say, the People's Congress functions as a rubber stamp for what the inner party has already decided. Again, my opinions aside, people in China generally are supportive of the government at this present time. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] synapse1278@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago (4 children) Better answer the survey correctly when you live in a country that has laws like "disagreeing with the government is a crime" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (4 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 year ago (3 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] synapse1278@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children) Alright, you did convince me that the Chinese people report strong support to the CCP and report a strong perception of democracy. What I am still not convinced of however, is that PRC IS democratic. In my book, for a country to be democratic it needs to have: Freedom of speech Freedom of press Freedom of reunion Freedom of protest Universal access to education Political plurality Universal suffrage Universal respect of human right My opinion today is that, I highly doubt PRC qualifies to any of this points, but I don't know for sure. If you convince me with credible evidence that PRC is better than, let's say, France, Germany or Norway, on all these points, then I am ready to move to China with you next year. Edit: I forgot a few important point on my democratic list of requirements: Laicity (division of state and religion and tolerance for all religions) Division of power (Legislative, Justice, Executive, etc, must be help by different institution regulating each other) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago* (2 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies)
[+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (4 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 year ago (3 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] synapse1278@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children) Alright, you did convince me that the Chinese people report strong support to the CCP and report a strong perception of democracy. What I am still not convinced of however, is that PRC IS democratic. In my book, for a country to be democratic it needs to have: Freedom of speech Freedom of press Freedom of reunion Freedom of protest Universal access to education Political plurality Universal suffrage Universal respect of human right My opinion today is that, I highly doubt PRC qualifies to any of this points, but I don't know for sure. If you convince me with credible evidence that PRC is better than, let's say, France, Germany or Norway, on all these points, then I am ready to move to China with you next year. Edit: I forgot a few important point on my democratic list of requirements: Laicity (division of state and religion and tolerance for all religions) Division of power (Legislative, Justice, Executive, etc, must be help by different institution regulating each other) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago* (2 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (-1 replies)
[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 year ago (3 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] synapse1278@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children) Alright, you did convince me that the Chinese people report strong support to the CCP and report a strong perception of democracy. What I am still not convinced of however, is that PRC IS democratic. In my book, for a country to be democratic it needs to have: Freedom of speech Freedom of press Freedom of reunion Freedom of protest Universal access to education Political plurality Universal suffrage Universal respect of human right My opinion today is that, I highly doubt PRC qualifies to any of this points, but I don't know for sure. If you convince me with credible evidence that PRC is better than, let's say, France, Germany or Norway, on all these points, then I am ready to move to China with you next year. Edit: I forgot a few important point on my democratic list of requirements: Laicity (division of state and religion and tolerance for all religions) Division of power (Legislative, Justice, Executive, etc, must be help by different institution regulating each other) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago* (2 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (-1 replies)
[+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 year ago (3 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] synapse1278@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children) Alright, you did convince me that the Chinese people report strong support to the CCP and report a strong perception of democracy. What I am still not convinced of however, is that PRC IS democratic. In my book, for a country to be democratic it needs to have: Freedom of speech Freedom of press Freedom of reunion Freedom of protest Universal access to education Political plurality Universal suffrage Universal respect of human right My opinion today is that, I highly doubt PRC qualifies to any of this points, but I don't know for sure. If you convince me with credible evidence that PRC is better than, let's say, France, Germany or Norway, on all these points, then I am ready to move to China with you next year. Edit: I forgot a few important point on my democratic list of requirements: Laicity (division of state and religion and tolerance for all religions) Division of power (Legislative, Justice, Executive, etc, must be help by different institution regulating each other) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago* (2 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (-1 replies)
[–] synapse1278@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children) Alright, you did convince me that the Chinese people report strong support to the CCP and report a strong perception of democracy. What I am still not convinced of however, is that PRC IS democratic. In my book, for a country to be democratic it needs to have: Freedom of speech Freedom of press Freedom of reunion Freedom of protest Universal access to education Political plurality Universal suffrage Universal respect of human right My opinion today is that, I highly doubt PRC qualifies to any of this points, but I don't know for sure. If you convince me with credible evidence that PRC is better than, let's say, France, Germany or Norway, on all these points, then I am ready to move to China with you next year. Edit: I forgot a few important point on my democratic list of requirements: Laicity (division of state and religion and tolerance for all religions) Division of power (Legislative, Justice, Executive, etc, must be help by different institution regulating each other) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago* (2 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (-1 replies)
[+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago* (2 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply)
[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply)
[+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply)