I apologize if my original statement was not clear, I was also following suit and meant nice for the individual. Essentially I was saying one governmental nicety doesn’t make up for the country’s govt being a cluster fuck. Having the government perform one thing functional is not the same as a functional government. That was my point.
China and America are perfectly functional governments despite their flaws. Are you just looking for an opportunity to dunk on them?
In the area of automative regulation America is the only developed nation to have increased traffic deaths over the past decade or so. You can go verify that fact.
So when it comes to seeing China implement a basic automative regulation, it is indeed a “must be nice” situation.
The problem with your original statement is that it’s stupid and patronizing
No it seems the problem is you appear to think because there are a few positives, the governments are functional. So I guess it depends on what you mean by functional. You are welcome to disagree, I was just clearing up what I meant. There are people that say at least Hitler made the trains run on time. I wouldn’t say functional though.
Would you say that a government is functional if a highly biased university research project spanning 15 years determined that over 95% of people approved of their government, even accounting for the possible ways these numbers could be skewed?
I would not trust any research that states 95% of people agree on almost anything, that’s extremely unlikely in any situation ever. Any study saying 95% of people approve of their government of all things sounds like coersion, faking, or simply a culture that fosters saying something regardless of truth. If you asked thousands of people in Russia if they approve of the government, they’ll say yes. But they aren’t being truthful. I’m betting they didn’t interview certain groups as well, as those folks are being killed by the Chinese govt. So yes one study saying one thing is definitely not enough to overcome the hurdles.
Yea, I’m sure all those folks in Hong Kong that were rioting approve of their new government overlords. I’m sure the Uyghurs would say they’re doing just a fine job. The article even mentions they didn’t ask laborers. I don’t disagree that they asked those people and they did respond that way. However whether people answer truthfully about their authoritarian government is a completely different thing. So yes, I do question this one single survey done of a small sample size and there’s really no way for them to account for everything. How many other peer reviewed studies do you have besides this one?
There are 1.3 billion people in China and you can read the report to see their satisfaction with a variety of metrics from the indifference of local officials to their participation in public health programs, over the past however many years
I hope you understand that even a 5% disapproval rate for something in China is still somewhere near 70 million people. There are only 11 million uyghurs in China. Do you not see how if you add up all the people who approve and disapprove you get the same ballpark numbers the study is claiming?
Likewise 30,000 people out of 1.3 billion is not going to be representative. Again do you have any other peer-reviewed studies or are you just basing your entire beliefs of one small sample study?
I apologize if my original statement was not clear, I was also following suit and meant nice for the individual. Essentially I was saying one governmental nicety doesn’t make up for the country’s govt being a cluster fuck. Having the government perform one thing functional is not the same as a functional government. That was my point.
China and America are perfectly functional governments despite their flaws. Are you just looking for an opportunity to dunk on them?
In the area of automative regulation America is the only developed nation to have increased traffic deaths over the past decade or so. You can go verify that fact.
So when it comes to seeing China implement a basic automative regulation, it is indeed a “must be nice” situation.
The problem with your original statement is that it’s stupid and patronizing
No it seems the problem is you appear to think because there are a few positives, the governments are functional. So I guess it depends on what you mean by functional. You are welcome to disagree, I was just clearing up what I meant. There are people that say at least Hitler made the trains run on time. I wouldn’t say functional though.
Would you say that a government is functional if a highly biased university research project spanning 15 years determined that over 95% of people approved of their government, even accounting for the possible ways these numbers could be skewed?
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/07/long-term-survey-reveals-chinese-government-satisfaction/
I would not trust any research that states 95% of people agree on almost anything, that’s extremely unlikely in any situation ever. Any study saying 95% of people approve of their government of all things sounds like coersion, faking, or simply a culture that fosters saying something regardless of truth. If you asked thousands of people in Russia if they approve of the government, they’ll say yes. But they aren’t being truthful. I’m betting they didn’t interview certain groups as well, as those folks are being killed by the Chinese govt. So yes one study saying one thing is definitely not enough to overcome the hurdles.
You just blindly reject Harvard research because deep down inside you know better, right?
It must actually boggle your mind that people can honestly approve of their government even when that government isn’t doing anything special
Did you know around 80% of republicans support Trump? That’s about the same % of Russians who agree w Putin. You can go look that up.
Your intuitive knowledge is worthless
Yea, I’m sure all those folks in Hong Kong that were rioting approve of their new government overlords. I’m sure the Uyghurs would say they’re doing just a fine job. The article even mentions they didn’t ask laborers. I don’t disagree that they asked those people and they did respond that way. However whether people answer truthfully about their authoritarian government is a completely different thing. So yes, I do question this one single survey done of a small sample size and there’s really no way for them to account for everything. How many other peer reviewed studies do you have besides this one?
There are 1.3 billion people in China and you can read the report to see their satisfaction with a variety of metrics from the indifference of local officials to their participation in public health programs, over the past however many years
I hope you understand that even a 5% disapproval rate for something in China is still somewhere near 70 million people. There are only 11 million uyghurs in China. Do you not see how if you add up all the people who approve and disapprove you get the same ballpark numbers the study is claiming?
Just do the math lol
Likewise 30,000 people out of 1.3 billion is not going to be representative. Again do you have any other peer-reviewed studies or are you just basing your entire beliefs of one small sample study?