this post was submitted on 05 Feb 2026
227 points (86.5% liked)
Memes
54238 readers
1783 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Does lemmy.ml include entirety of China? Because I was only talking about lemmy.ml. Again, you sure you replied to the right comment?
QinShiHuangsShlong was clearly explaining how you are utterly mistaken about China. When Chinese tell you that public ownership is principle (ie controls the commanding heights), that the working classes run the state, and an overwhelming number support the CPC, your response is that it's "stating the obvious" to say otherwise. This stems from a sheer distrust of the words of Chinese people, and is why your comment is chauvanist.
They said I dont see Chinese people as people instead of focusing on the 'stating the obvious' part. They literally came up with something I never said to support their point.
When you're denying China's system as socialist, despite what Chinese say and the reasons they give, it points to a distrust of Chinese people themselves.
That makes not sense at all, people in China are diverse and numerous with many different opinions and experiences. Don't just band them together as if they are all the same.
I didn't, I simply stated that the overwhelming majority of Chinese citizens support their socialist system and consider it as such. Against them, you claim that private ownership is somehow principle despite being relegated to secondary industries and medium/small firms, and claim that the bourgeoisie are in charge of the state despite evidence to the contrary.
On what basis do you believe what you do?
Dont move the goal post. You are trying to prove my comment somehow dehumanizes the entirety of the Chinese population, how does that make sense? When did I say or treat the WHOLE chinese population as less than human with my words?
I'm not moving the goal posts, I'm explaining why your comments are seen as dehumanizing and chauvanist. It's tied directly to your distrust of statistics coming from China and your distrust of China's system being what it actually is. If you can give credible evidence supporting your views, then you can clear your name, if you're just going to say "it's obvious" then it's clear that you don't actually have such evidence, and that it's likely pure chauvanism.
So if I disagree that China is socialist it automatically means I think Chinese aren't people? My distrust of the statics is directly tied to the chienese government not the people. It make not make sense to you but it is possible to disagree with the government of a country without dehumanizing its people, I disagree with the government of the USA for example, and often my own country's.
If you disagree with what the overwhelming majority of Chinese people say about their own system out of your distrust for the Chinese government, and have no credible reasons to do so, then yes, it's chauvanism and dehumanizes Chinese citizens. It means they can't think for themselves, in your eyes, and are just "brainwashed" by "evil."
Explain your views, why isn't China socialist despite public ownership being principle and the working classes controlling the state?
Does lemmy.ml represent the majority of the Chinese people? Do you? If its statics, that comes from the government, not directly the people. And disagreeing does not dehumanize people, that is such an authoritarian view I can't even. You disagree with the majority of the western world about China, does that mean you are dehumanizing them?
Western organizations have found that over 90% of the population approve the government, which is shown to be consistent and accurate. This isn't coming from the government, but from western orgs directly asking Chinese people. Further, despite evidence that the government of China isn't lying about public ownership being principle, and the transparent form of democracy we can view, you still don't trust the government's claims either!
I do disagree with what the majority of the west says about a different country that they've mythologized for centuries, yes. That's not dehumanizing the west, it's acknowledging a different class interest. You're disagreeing with what Chinese people say about themselves, and are framing it as them being brainwashed into doing so, incapable of thinking for themselves.
Explain your views, why isn’t China socialist despite public ownership being principle and the working classes controlling the state?
That blogsite doesnt have direct links to the sources, do you?
So you can disagree but I can't, interesting point of view.
Mind you, you have only talked about government approval so far, not perception of the state as socialist or not. But let me entertain you and pretend that is true (even though it is absurd). Lets also pretend that disagreeing with someone (only when it is me, you can apparently) dehumanizes people. 80% of the chinese people believe the country is a socialist country, disagreeing with them constitutes disagreeing with 80% of the country (by your flawed logic), does that me I dehumanized the ENTIRETY of the chinese people?
Lmao, reducing Jason Hickel, a world renowned economic anthropologist, to 'just a blogsite' is hilarious.
Just a quick background from his wiki
It does have direct links, like to Harvard here. There's a major difference with disagreeing with everything the majority of Chinese people say about themselves, and with disagreeing with what the majority of Statesians say about Chinese people. Disagreement itself isn't wrong, it's disagreeing with easily verifiable statistics and facts regarding ownership and support.
Nothing about a country with over one billion people with many different ethnicities and continent sized land is easility verifiable.
"The views expressed in the Ash Center Policy Briefs Series are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the John F. Kennedy School of Government or of Harvard Universi- ty" so okay, not really Havard's opinion or name behind the study
"While no single survey can adequately address all aspects of satisfaction levels in China, this brief identifies two important yet contrasting findings." Seems your own article disapproves of being used by itself to form opinions.
"Yet long-term, publicly-available, and nationally-representative surveys in mainland China are so rare that it is difficult to know how ordinary Chinese citizens feel about their government." Very insteresting "Although state censorship and propaganda are widespread" gotta love when your conclusion needs to mention this.
All in all no details for the actual methodology nor about the so called private company that perfomed the survey (since the institute apparently only created the survey itself).
Well, this is enough for me today, not gonna bother replying futher since you seem to be trying to waste my time and 'beat' me by tiring me with nonsense.
Satre's anti-semite.txt
Published by Harvard.
Correct, which is why many others were linked. It doesn't mean the data is inaccurate, either, just that no study can be comprehensive.
It mentions this because it's a western org presenting it, one hostile to China, admitting popular support.
This is the peak of your logic, you endlessly move goalposts, tie yourself into pretzels logically, and even lie to avoid acknowledging that Chinese people can speak for themselves.
You are defending and agreeing with someone calling China evil and authoritarian capitalist. He is wrong and so are you. No amount of dodging or hiding behind semantics will change the position you chose to defend and that you clearly chose to defend it for chauvinist reasons.
You said I didnt see Chinese people as people, which I never said ever. Are you gonna retract that? Cause you are still wrong.
No because even if you don't state it openly it's clearly apparent. You clearly hate China, and we're all just brainwashed serfs of the ebil gubberment.
Ah okay, so the fabrications of your mind and you prejudice against me are relevant and valid point for you to criticize me. The irony of your comment isnt lost on me
The "fabrications" of you siding with someone calling China evil. China is directed by the people. Reconcile how you don't hate Chinese people for me.
The government does not represent all of a country's people, a country can be evil without its people being evil. Example: the US
LMAO
Over 80% of us support the government. Are we all brainwashed or are we all evil?
Who published that statistic?
Edelman
Page 6 US western capitalist firm and plenty of others. Again showing your ass.
Showing my ass? Western capitalist firm? Are you using google translate?
Edelman is an american capitalist consulting firm no Chinese influence that you're so scared of (chauvinist). Showing your ass as in you are showing how uneducated you are. English obviously isn't my first language again you being a fucking chauvinist loser.
Its not my first language either. No links to the actual research or methodology and just name calling, well, I'm done with rolling in the mud with you, have a good day
I directly linked the report? Are you blind as well as an idiotic racist bastard?
Harvard, among many others. Read what's been linked.
It wasnt linked. Okay, lets see how the research was conducted "and together with a leading private research and polling company in China" so the questioning wasnt done by havard but this private company that isnt named. It is also only 3000 interviewees, which isnt statistically relevant in a country of over 1 billion people. Even the study found discrepancies between people in the major cities and the country side.
The sample size was over 10 times what you claimed, and it was absolutely statistically relevant. Here's a neat link on sample sizes, 31,000 is more than plenty. There indeed were discrepancies between the urban and rural, that's because historically rural areas have been slower to develop than urban areas, and now rural areas are made a priority to close the gap.
The link you first sent mentioned 3000.
The study itself says 31,000. Go to the study itself if you want firm understanding. You also lied about not having any information on how it was gathered, it was also linked. Here's the full PDF.
That is only 18 pages
Oof, my bad, thought I saw 300 pages and didn't check before I sent. I'm riled up a bit. Thank you!