this post was submitted on 05 Feb 2026
168 points (86.5% liked)

Memes

54197 readers
1571 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. 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
[–] Dagnet@lemmy.world -1 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 4 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Dagnet@lemmy.world 1 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (2 children)

The government does not represent all of a country's people, a country can be evil without its people being evil. Example: the US

[–] ZeroHora@lemmy.ml 2 points 8 hours ago

Example: the US

LMAO

[–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Over 80% of us support the government. Are we all brainwashed or are we all evil?

[–] Dagnet@lemmy.world 0 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

Who published that statistic?

[–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 7 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (1 children)

Edelman

Page 6 US western capitalist firm and plenty of others. Again showing your ass.

[–] Dagnet@lemmy.world -2 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Showing my ass? Western capitalist firm? Are you using google translate?

[–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 4 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Dagnet@lemmy.world -3 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 7 points 12 hours ago

I directly linked the report? Are you blind as well as an idiotic racist bastard?

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 7 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Harvard, among many others. Read what's been linked.

[–] Dagnet@lemmy.world -2 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

The goal of this research brief, and of the longitudinal survey that informs it, is to address the question of gov- ernment legitimacy in China using the most objective and quantitative methods currently available. Our sur- vey1 contains data from eight separate waves between 2003 and 2016, and records face-to-face interview responses from more than 31,000 individuals in both urban and rural settings. As such, it represents the lon- gest-running independent effort to track citizen ap- proval with all four levels of the Chinese government across time (ranging from the township, to the county, to the provincial, and finally to the central government).

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.

[–] Dagnet@lemmy.world -4 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

The link you first sent mentioned 3000.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Edie@lemmy.ml 5 points 12 hours ago (1 children)
[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 12 hours ago

Oof, my bad, thought I saw 300 pages and didn't check before I sent. I'm riled up a bit. Thank you!