4 ms·

> 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. >

• justinmcp 5y ago
  > 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 5y ago
    > 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 5y ago
      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 5y ago
        > 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.