Yet in polling done by legitimate neutral pollsters, 80% of the Chinese citizens are satisfied with their government, and are optimistic about it.
Seems to me there is a very pronounced disconnect between ‘democracy’ and ‘universal better quality of life’.
I wonder which system has the better chance of surviving and better still, prospering?
Neither. Scientific Socialism is the only sustainable way forward.
Humans are a herd animal. I can not even remotely see Scientific Socialism as ‘sustainable’. However, China;'s system comes close, as it is a very socially engineered society.
Yet in polling done by legitimate neutral pollsters, 80% of the Chinese citizens are satisfied with their government, and are optimistic about it.
Please provide an actual source.
Not interested in doing so. If you want to know, google it.
We aren’t even allowed to acknowledge genociders genociding…
Not interested in engaging.
Sounds like bullshit. If anything it strengthens my belief and desire to vote seeing what inaction leads to
IE having a rapist, war criminal, orange conman elected as your leader
legitimate neutral pollsters
ngl, seems kinda sus
Yet in polling done by legitimate neutral pollsters, 80% of the Chinese citizens are satisfied with their government, and are optimistic about it.
Wild to make this claim but not site the source.
Google AI. Not hard to find this source. AI pretty much eliminates all of this nonsense about ‘please site source’.
[picard_facepalm.jpg]
This reminds me of when parents say “Because I said so.” It doesn’t mean they’re wrong, but it definitely doesn’t give any certainty they’re right.
Google AI.
With all due respect, that is not a news source that I recognize. LLM’s are not fact finders, they’re language models and will generate whatever nonsense you tell them to.
Google AI IS a ‘fact finder’. That is its power. it sorts through pages and pages until it finds the answer. However, I have noticed that it is again shifting the ‘source’ to show a preference for “paid sponsors of the ‘facts’”
Google AI IS a ‘fact finder’. That is its power. it sorts through pages and pages until it finds the answer.
Ah yes scraping websites is definitely fact finding, surely false information has never been shared before on the internet with the intent of deception.
I have noticed that it is again shifting the ‘source’ to show a preference for “paid sponsors of the ‘facts’”
Uh huh, so you’re telling me it’s intentionally misleading end users from known and reputable sources to its pay-wall blocking sponsors. Shocked I say!
6 month old account and you still haven’t grasped Lemmy’s stance on LLM’s yet?
I am saying that it can be a credible source if the sources it references are credible. On the other hand, wasting my time and yours by asking for sources that are readily available is just, well, I would suggest an example of garbage trolling.
I am saying that it can be a credible source if the sources it references are credible. On the other hand, wasting my time and yours by asking for sources
So when someone goes to fact check a claim you made, instead of providing the proof to back it up, you instead tell them to do the work themselves?
Do you just go about life spewing nonsense hoping
AILLM’s agree with you?Not interested in engaging.
From the actual study, 82% of Canadians are hopeful about democracy, with 12% of that being very hopeful.
When asked to think about the future, 71% said they were a little or somewhat hopeful about the way democracy works, while 12% reported being very hopeful and 17% reported being not at all hopeful.
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/260929/dq260929b-eng.htm
The data showed that respondents who were very hopeful about democracy were more likely to report high confidence in federal parliament, at 67 per cent. While only 11 per cent of the least hopeful respondents reported a feeling of high confidence.
The survey found similar trends for institutions such as the school system, justice system, courts, banks, major corporations and Canadian media.
That 80% figure compares to the 67% of that 12%,
If I’m understanding your sentence correctly, that is not at all what the article says. The 11% high confidence number is from the 17% that said they are not at all hopeful about democracy. Overall a very confusingly worded article.
Respondents who were very hopeful are 12%. Of that 12%, 67% had high confidence. In China, 80% of ALL respondents had high confidence in the government. Alleviating poverty and moving hundreds of millions from poverty into the middle income will often do that.
What is your objective in posting this? What is your specific claim that you are asserting by reference to polls in China (assuming we take them at face value)?
What is your objective in posting your response? I question if it is to advance knowledge.
Yep, I think it’s pretty logical for the large majority Canadians to have a tempered level of hopefulness. There are active efforts across the world to undermine it, seemingly from both Russia and the USA, but our Westminster system is rather resilient, perhaps even too rigid for some.
Most credible analyses group “favourable and very favourable” together, ignoring the non-extreme end of the answer is a very unserious technique.
As compared to the attempts by the most powerful of Western nations to undermine the Chinese system? Yet one completely withstands this pressure, the other is heavily weighed down by it. Would that suggest that one is natural to the culture, while the other is imposed on the culture? The Westminster system has a track record of what, 700 years at most, but the Chinese culture has a track record of 8,000 years.
Don’t compare apples with kumquats. The current Chinese governmental system is only about a century old. Prior to that, they were a monarchy. It appears to resist pressure because it violently represses dissent, and you only do that if you lack confidence in your own authority, as most young regimes do.
The current Chinese regime is based on a return to 8,000 years of cultural foundations. It is now called ‘socialism with Chinese characteristics’ in China. A return to the family and ancestors as the foundation for guidance. Xi is a product of this Chinese cultural heritage, not the creator of it. Dissent is completely allowed in China, what is NOT allowed is any movement to attack or remove the system of governance. With a population of over one billion, even one percent of the population is over ten million, the total population of many countries. Yes, it takes a firm hand to keep discipline with that many people. That is the problem in America - it got too large to be able to support ‘democracy’. America is now (or perhaps always has been) two countries, each vying for dominance and power over the other one.
Congradulations, I’m sure your masters at the CCP’s propaganda arm are very pleased with your regurgitation of the party line. Unfortunately for you, the rest of us live in consensus reality.
