[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.

[justinmcp]

>therefore, the only real solution is to simply talk about the discussion/argument/idea not about the person behind it. >they aren't if you are not focused on the "genuine-ness" of the poster.

Because the goal is not to expose ideas, the goal is to change the conversation so they can be hidden.

>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.

Well, thanks for the criticism, you are probably right, I'll work on it. Have a good life.