5 ms·

China has no freedom of speech, the press, religion, or assembly. There is no real comparison of the indoctrination of the people of China to the US to be made.

China has no freedom of speech, the press, religion, or assembly. There is no real comparison of the indoctrination of the people of China to the US to be made. The systems are completely different as to be unrecognizable from one another. In addition, the Chinese court system is simply a tool of the government to keep themselves in power. Reference the 99.9% conviction rate: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/12193202/Chinese-courts-convict-more-than-99.9-per-cent-of-defendants.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/121932...

mistermann 7y ago
> There is no real comparison of the indoctrination of the people of China to the US to be made. The systems are completely different as to be unrecognizable from one another. I'm not sure I entirely agree with that. It's true, the two systems are significantly different, but I don't think that rules out that Americans are subject to a form of indoctrination. Look at the stranglehold the two parties have on the electoral system in the US. Just as one example, what happened to Bernie Sanders in the last election barely raised an eyebrow. If you listen to Dan Carlin's Common Sense podcast for several weeks on either side of the last election (particularly after), I'd say it's pretty hard to make a case that the system isn't rigged to a fairly large degree, but how many people are actually aware of this? I don't know if indoctrination is the perfect word for it, but constantly singing the praises of the system of democracy, while realistically the only alternatives people get have to go through a very thorough pre-screening for "suitability", and almost no one ever asks what the hell is really going on here, seems like a relative of some sort to indoctrination.
- SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
  Even if everything you're saying is true, the important point is that you and I and Dan Carlin are free to go around saying it. It's my strong impression that this is not true in China; that it's a de facto if not de jure crime for media personalities to say things like "the Communist Party has rigged the system to a fairly large degree" or "Xi Jinping Thought seems kinda dumb and I'd like to read the alternatives".
  - mistermann 7y ago
    > Even if everything you're saying is true, the important point is that you and I and Dan Carlin are free to go around saying it. I'm not so sure about that either. I'd be surprised if the average Chinese person wasn't fairly well aware that they live in a censored world, and that a government that does that might also bend the truth a bit on the evening news. The average American on the other hand, and even the above average judging by most forums I frequent, seem to be under the impression that the US is truly the land of the free, the home of the brave, with a completely free press (not unlike the completely free electoral system), and that what they see and hear in the news is generally trustworthy and comprehensive. Chinese people may not know the truth, but I'm pretty sure they know it's being hidden from them. People in the West, defenders of the free world, who not only seem unable to see the various pink elephants that are right in front of their eyes, but will attack and condemn anyone who points them out, worry me a lot more than the indoctrinated in plain sight Chinese. But hey, that's just me.
    - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
      American newspapers regularly publish state secrets, write about how the people in power are fools, and generally go out of their way to make life more difficult for politicians. That doesn't mean the press says everything true and nothing false, but it's very hard for me to understand how you could look at the situation and suspect the government has some secret censorship power. It's far from uncommon for a reporter to explicitly say "by the way, the government told me not to disclose this information but I'm gonna do it anyway".
      - mistermann 7y ago
        You seem to think in terms of censorship being a binary. Now that I point it out you won't of course, but what about when you (and my downvoters) wake up tomorrow?
        SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
        No, I’m very willing to bite that bullet. Censorship is indeed a binary. There’s a fundamental and important difference between a system where the government has soft power to encourage stories it likes, and a system where newspapers must not print anything the government doesn’t want them to.
- jcranberry 7y ago
  A reality tv show political outsider was able to become president through the Republican primary system. Superdelegates in the Democratic primary are the following: 1. Elected members of the DNC 2. Democratic governors 3. Democratic members of Congress 4. Former Democratic Presidents, Vice Presidents, congressional leaders, and DNC Chairs. The majority of them are elected officials currently holding office. The rest are formerly elected officials, and a minority. It's called an indirect election. That is not 'rigging'. The closest thing to rigging here would be category 4.
  - mistermann 7y ago
    > A reality tv show political outsider was able to become president through the Republican primary system. That this is even possible is as much a criticism of the process as it is a compliment. Honest question: if you were designing a brand new system to elect the leader of the US, how likely do you expect it would be for someone of his calibre to be the last person standing? > 1. Elected members of the DNC 2. Democratic governors 3. Democratic members of Congress 4. Former Democratic Presidents, Vice Presidents, congressional leaders, and DNC Chairs. The majority of them are elected officials currently holding office. The rest are formerly elected officials, and a minority. Was this structure designed by the founding fathers? What percentage of Americans would you say really understand that a small group of undemocratically unelected people like this has the ability to directly block undesirable (to whom we don't really know) candidates from making it to the election? How many people do you think approve of this structure. > That is not 'rigging'. For certain definitions of rigged, of course. If the actual nature of this system was clearly explained to the American people, do you think most people would agree with you?
    - jcranberry 7y ago
      >Was this structure designed by the founding fathers? No, this is a primary, as in, it is how the democratic party elects its own representative to run for president. >What percentage of Americans would you say really understand that a small group of undemocratically unelected people like this has the ability to directly block undesirable (to whom we don't really know) candidates from making it to the election? In 2016, 20 of 716 were in category 4, i.e., those who aren't currently holding office as a result of having been voted in. The rest are currently holding an office for which they were voted in. In other words, democratically elected. Superdelegates and how they function is common knowledge for anyone following or participating in the primary. It's heavily covered and talked about every presidential election cycle. >How many people do you think approve of this structure. According to a poll run by Rasmussen in 2016, likely democratic voters approved of it at a rate of 30%. >For certain definitions of rigged, of course. If the actual nature of this system was clearly explained to the American people, do you think most people would agree with you? Americans understand very well how the election system works. 'Rigged' implies deception or fraudulence.

mistermann 7y ago

> There is no real comparison of the indoctrination of the people of China to the US to be made. The systems are completely different as to be unrecognizable from one another. I'm not sure I entirely agree with that. It's true, the two systems are significantly different, but I don't think that rules out that Americans are subject to a form of indoctrination. Look at the stranglehold the two parties have on the electoral system in the US. Just as one example, what happened to Bernie Sanders in the last election barely raised an eyebrow. If you listen to Dan Carlin's Common Sense podcast for several weeks on either side of the last election (particularly after), I'd say it's pretty hard to make a case that the system isn't rigged to a fairly large degree, but how many people are actually aware of this? I don't know if indoctrination is the perfect word for it, but constantly singing the praises of the system of democracy, while realistically the only alternatives people get have to go through a very thorough pre-screening for "suitability", and almost no one ever asks what the hell is really going on here, seems like a relative of some sort to indoctrination.

SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
Even if everything you're saying is true, the important point is that you and I and Dan Carlin are free to go around saying it. It's my strong impression that this is not true in China; that it's a de facto if not de jure crime for media personalities to say things like "the Communist Party has rigged the system to a fairly large degree" or "Xi Jinping Thought seems kinda dumb and I'd like to read the alternatives".
- mistermann 7y ago
  > Even if everything you're saying is true, the important point is that you and I and Dan Carlin are free to go around saying it. I'm not so sure about that either. I'd be surprised if the average Chinese person wasn't fairly well aware that they live in a censored world, and that a government that does that might also bend the truth a bit on the evening news. The average American on the other hand, and even the above average judging by most forums I frequent, seem to be under the impression that the US is truly the land of the free, the home of the brave, with a completely free press (not unlike the completely free electoral system), and that what they see and hear in the news is generally trustworthy and comprehensive. Chinese people may not know the truth, but I'm pretty sure they know it's being hidden from them. People in the West, defenders of the free world, who not only seem unable to see the various pink elephants that are right in front of their eyes, but will attack and condemn anyone who points them out, worry me a lot more than the indoctrinated in plain sight Chinese. But hey, that's just me.
  - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
    American newspapers regularly publish state secrets, write about how the people in power are fools, and generally go out of their way to make life more difficult for politicians. That doesn't mean the press says everything true and nothing false, but it's very hard for me to understand how you could look at the situation and suspect the government has some secret censorship power. It's far from uncommon for a reporter to explicitly say "by the way, the government told me not to disclose this information but I'm gonna do it anyway".
    - mistermann 7y ago
      You seem to think in terms of censorship being a binary. Now that I point it out you won't of course, but what about when you (and my downvoters) wake up tomorrow?
      - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
        No, I’m very willing to bite that bullet. Censorship is indeed a binary. There’s a fundamental and important difference between a system where the government has soft power to encourage stories it likes, and a system where newspapers must not print anything the government doesn’t want them to.
jcranberry 7y ago
A reality tv show political outsider was able to become president through the Republican primary system. Superdelegates in the Democratic primary are the following: 1. Elected members of the DNC 2. Democratic governors 3. Democratic members of Congress 4. Former Democratic Presidents, Vice Presidents, congressional leaders, and DNC Chairs. The majority of them are elected officials currently holding office. The rest are formerly elected officials, and a minority. It's called an indirect election. That is not 'rigging'. The closest thing to rigging here would be category 4.
- mistermann 7y ago
  > A reality tv show political outsider was able to become president through the Republican primary system. That this is even possible is as much a criticism of the process as it is a compliment. Honest question: if you were designing a brand new system to elect the leader of the US, how likely do you expect it would be for someone of his calibre to be the last person standing? > 1. Elected members of the DNC 2. Democratic governors 3. Democratic members of Congress 4. Former Democratic Presidents, Vice Presidents, congressional leaders, and DNC Chairs. The majority of them are elected officials currently holding office. The rest are formerly elected officials, and a minority. Was this structure designed by the founding fathers? What percentage of Americans would you say really understand that a small group of undemocratically unelected people like this has the ability to directly block undesirable (to whom we don't really know) candidates from making it to the election? How many people do you think approve of this structure. > That is not 'rigging'. For certain definitions of rigged, of course. If the actual nature of this system was clearly explained to the American people, do you think most people would agree with you?
  - jcranberry 7y ago
    >Was this structure designed by the founding fathers? No, this is a primary, as in, it is how the democratic party elects its own representative to run for president. >What percentage of Americans would you say really understand that a small group of undemocratically unelected people like this has the ability to directly block undesirable (to whom we don't really know) candidates from making it to the election? In 2016, 20 of 716 were in category 4, i.e., those who aren't currently holding office as a result of having been voted in. The rest are currently holding an office for which they were voted in. In other words, democratically elected. Superdelegates and how they function is common knowledge for anyone following or participating in the primary. It's heavily covered and talked about every presidential election cycle. >How many people do you think approve of this structure. According to a poll run by Rasmussen in 2016, likely democratic voters approved of it at a rate of 30%. >For certain definitions of rigged, of course. If the actual nature of this system was clearly explained to the American people, do you think most people would agree with you? Americans understand very well how the election system works. 'Rigged' implies deception or fraudulence.