[erklik]

> who is being genuine and who is not

Does it matter? Judge the idea, not the person behind it I say. If the argument is not worthy to stand, it will fall.

> That democracies have corruption

But it's not corruption. That's the issue.

"When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy" [1]

That's not corruption. If America was a true democracy, the country would look completely different.

> The CCP creates laws that individually or in part can benefit its populace, but are often or solely pro cadre or their personal interests.

It doesn't seem like that from the outside. Looking in, it seems like the CCP has successfully pulled an astronomical amount of people out of poverty and increasing QoL insanely, all while maintaining public legitimacy.

Honestly, all it seems like, is that America drunk the cool aid too much and now believes so hard in it's own propaganda that it looks like brainwashing, while the reality is utterly different.

1. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/03/america...

[justinmcp]

> Does it matter? Judge the idea, not the person behind it I say. If the argument is not worthy to stand, it will fall.

Of course it matters, what a bizarre statement.

>> That democracies have corruption > But it's not corruption. That's the issue.

Either deliberately, though in-attention or personal need you, are mis-interpreting and or changing the subject.

> It doesn't seem like that from the outside. Looking in, it seems like the CCP has successfully pulled an > astronomical amount of people out of poverty and increasing QoL insanely, all while maintaining public ? > legitimacy.

There is no good way to assert that, but it's a pretty common refrain.

> Honestly, all it seems like, is that America drunk the cool aid too much and now believes so hard in it's > own propaganda that it looks like brainwashing, while the reality is utterly different.

I'm not American.

All this cycles round to what I was saying. You could just be an interested observer, passionate about seemingly connected ideas. Or you could be deliberately derailing, trying to muddy the waters. There's no good way to tell, but ultimately it still paints China in a bad light - eventually no one will believe anything.

[grecy]

> Of course it matters, what a bizarre statement.

Why? Please elaborate.

As the person you replied to said, I feel that ideas should be judged on their merit, not on who came up with them. Plenty of "bad" people have good ideas and visa versa.

[justinmcp]

Sure.. but what I asked was who was being genuine, not whether exclusively ideas should be judged on their own merit, it was the other poster who pivoted what I said in that way. Similar to the way the poster below changed "making some rules that benefit themselves" to "its not possible to be successful if laws just benefit themselves" - which is not what I said.

It's a pretty typical tactic - but whether it was done because they want to boost the CCP or wether they just aren't good or careless at understanding or expressing themselves? I don't know.

Being genuine; the field of human interaction isn't some philosophical paper; if your cousin consistently lies, and has always lied; it's a good bet they will do so again - not evaluating each thing they say on its merits is a rational choice.

If everyone in a group is prone to lying or misdirection - evaluating each idea will lead to exhaustion - trust matters.

[erklik]

> Sure.. but what I asked was who was being genuine, not whether exclusively ideas should be judged on their own merit, it was the other poster who pivoted what I said in that way. Similar to the way the poster below changed "making some rules that benefit themselves" to "its not possible to be successful if laws just benefit themselves" - which is not what I said.

For reference, I am the other poster. I don't think I pivoted. My entire point is that genuine-ness of the poster does not matter. This is what confuses me.

What does the "genuine-ness" of the other person matter in terms of whether the idea should be judged on it's own merit or not. If you disagree with it, you disagree with it, regardless of whether the other person is being genuine or not genuine.

> "making some rules that benefit themselves"

You didn't say that. You said that the laws can benefit it's populace, but are often or solely pro cadre or in their personal interests. That's not making some rules that benefit themselves, that's more making laws that mostly benefit themselves with citizens being a secondary factor.

Considering that in 1990, China had 750 million people under the poverty line and in 2016 (latest World Bank figures I could find with a quick google search) that number is 7.2m million. Clearly, the policies aren't entirely aimed at benefiting CCP with slight citizen benefit as a secondary thought. Or else maybe the CCP's incentives are very very well aligned with lifting people out of poverty.

> It's a pretty typical tactic

I honestly find this so yucky. Every discussion on China devolves into people claiming the other is a shill in an attempt to discredit the person and get away feeling like they're superior.

> if your cousin consistently lies, and has always lied; it's a good bet they will do so again

but you don't know it's your cousin online talking to you. Therefore, what happens is that anyone who speaks against your preconceived notions must be working for the shadowy government to spread "propaganda".

> If everyone in a group is prone to lying or misdirection - evaluating each idea will lead to exhaustion - trust matters.

and the group is everyone who disagrees with you? That's certainly what it seems like.

[justinmcp]

>For reference, I am the other poster. I don't think I pivoted. My entire point is that genuine-ness of >the poster does not matter. This is what confuses me.

But it does, don't agree? OK.

>You didn't say that. You said that the laws can benefit it's populace, but are often or solely pro >cadre or in their personal interests. That's not making some rules that benefit themselves, that's >more making laws that mostly benefit themselves with citizens being a secondary factor.

Much more accurate, but still not what the other poster claimed I was saying.

>I honestly find this so yucky. Every discussion on China devolves into people claiming the other is >a shill in an attempt to discredit the person and get away feeling like they're superior.

That is bad, because it is a low-trust environment - deliberately so.

> and the group is everyone who disagrees with you? That's certainly what it seems like.

That's your thoughts, not mine, but maybe you understand why I say genuineness matters, all these conversations are traps while the dishonest sow doubt. Talk to a point, answer it directly, don't derail with "facts", introduce new ideas as a new idea in the conversation, not a made claim on others thoughts.

[erklik]

> But it does

Why? Who cares if the other person is genuine or not? The idea is still an idea.

> because it is a low-trust environment

therefore, the only real solution is to simply talk about the discussion/argument/idea not about the person behind it.

> deliberately so.

deliberately? How? Just China or the entire internet? I was talking about the entire internet btw.

> all these conversations are traps while the dishonest sow doubt

they aren't if you are not focused on the "genuine-ness" of the poster.

> maybe you understand why I say genuineness matters

I really don't. I am failing to see it and you clearly cannot explain it well enough or simply are saying it without any concrete reasoning behind it. Either way, you haven't explained why it matters.

> Talk to a point, answer it directly, don't derail with "facts", introduce new ideas as a new idea in the conversation, not a made claim on others thoughts.

I don't understand what this weird pontificating is about.

[erklik]

> Either deliberately, though in-attention or personal need you, are mis-interpreting and or changing the subject.

I don't think I was doing either. If I was, please explain what exactly you were saying and what I mis-interpreted.

My understanding is this:

1. China is authoritarian. 2. They make laws that benefit themselves (i.e. CCP) without care for the populace (populace benefit is secondary) 3. Democracy is corrupt. 4. However, even if corrupt, it's better since it is not equal to China's system where the laws are made mostly out of interest for the CCP.

This was my interpretation.

However, as I said, the evidence is the other way around.

1. China is authoritarian -> Sure.

2. They make laws that benefit themselvse ahead of the populace.

Poverty in 1990 -> 750 million. Poverty in 2016 -> 7.2 million. That's World Bank figures. Not China figures. Clearly, either they had policies actually aimed at benefiting the populace or the laws that benefit CCP also align extremely well with the populace. In which case, we should learn from them since aligning incentives for politicians and populace is a pretty insane trick.

3. Democracy is corrupt.

Democracy is not just corrupt. It is corrupt in a way that makes the voice of the citizen entirely useless. Democracy does not represent your views if you live in America at least.

4. However, even if corrupt, it's better since it is not equal to China's system where the laws are made mostly out of interest for the CCP.

Economic elites and the organized interest groups group control America. Not the average person.

> There is no good way to assert that, but it's a pretty common refrain.

What? World Bank figures should that China has pulled massive amounts of people out of poverty, and increased their Quality of Life. Public Legitimacy seems clear since there aren't mass protests (Hong Kong showed that it is certainly possible).

Forget that. Just fly to Beijing. It's arguably more modern than most Western cities and talking to people will show you how their lives have changed. I genuinely don't understand how you're denying the economic miracle that the CCP has engineered.

> You could just be an interested observer, passionate about seemingly connected ideas. Or you could be deliberately derailing, trying to muddy the waters.

I am the first one. I don't understand how I derailed? Or how you thought that happened? Either you entirely misunderstood me, or just have no interest in actually talking about the discussion?

> There's no good way to tell, but ultimately it still paints China in a bad light - eventually no one will believe anything.

I mean, again, you can literally dismiss every argument that goes against your preconceived notions and pretend that the other is a shill but that's a very weird way to live in my opinion. It's more better to actually critically analyse what the other says and break it down or agree with them.

If your goal is to see China in a bad light, it doesn't matter what I say. You will see them that way.

This is what I meant by drinking the Kool_Aid too much. (Not limited to Americans but the entire Western sphere)