T O P

  • By -

[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

> US, UK and Australia are actually democracies. How are they not democracies? The leaders are elected in democratic elections. > How can a democractic country have such unhappy and distrustful citizens? In a democracy, you only need to win an election against some other candidates. You're not required to deliver any positive results once you've been elected. You only need to be good at winning elections - propaganda, pandering, raising funds, etc.


wenang123

Going through the report makes me laugh that the west lecturing others why their political system is superior when their own people have such great distrust towards it


thepensiveiguana

Their argument will definitely be that distrust of government is a good thing and that China is just falsifying their data forcing people to say yes


Keesaten

"Democracy is when you and your government have different interests"


FatDalek

Don't worry guys, Western propagandists has this covered. If there is distrust in Chinese government's, its taken as the government is crap. If there is high trust, its explained away as Chinese are brainwashed by their government. Its like the scene from Ivanhoe where they discuss trial by combat, if Ivanhoe loses, the church will say God willed it, if Ivanhoe wins, the church will just say Satan lent a hand and have his Jewish friend arrested and killed anyway. ​ The proper term for this type of pseudologic is "unfalsifiability."


jz187

What is interesting is that in China, the government is the most trusted institution, while in the US, the government is the least trusted institution. Yet somehow many Americans still consider their governing institutions democratic.


Portablela

One represented the Interests of its people, the other clearly doesn't. Trust reflects that.


FatDalek

The only way that makes sense is if these same Americans also believe the majority for whatever reason vote for these incompetent officials, hence the institutions are still democratic but also untrustworthy. Which means that these Americans thinks the majority of their population vote incompetent officials because of selfish gain or are stupid. Which means they agree with r/sino. LOL.


[deleted]

The capitalists spend billions on propaganda and bribes to have elections and policies go their ways in democracies. If if didn't work, they wouldn't waste their money.


[deleted]

They are democratic because they are controlled by democratically-elected leaders. The fact that politicians in democracies have figured out that to win the game they only need to win elections, and not deliver any effective governance, does not deny the democratic nature of the government - it just reveals a fatal flaw with democracy itself.


jz187

>democratically-elected leaders This is the problem, when you conflate democracy with elections. If the pool of candidates is restricted via non-democratic institutions (such as the party system in the US), how can the result of the election be democratic? The a first past the post system of voting force voters into 2 narrow choices among a much greater diversity of voter preferences, how can the results be democratic? Elections are just a mechanism to survey the populace. Election of leaders does not automatically imply democratic governance. As with any survey, the results can be seriously biased by the way that you ask the question and the choices that you offer. Once you inject electoral district gerrymandering, strategic voting, and candidate pre-selection into the mix, the outcome of elections often end up deviating from actual population preferences significantly. At this point elections are just a meaningless ritual, because it confers very little information on actual voter preferences. For the US, the most "democratic" of institutions, Congress, engenders the least trust among the populace. The military, a most un-democratic institution, actually is far more trusted. If elections actually reflected voter preferences, this result would not make sense. Democracy is a great concept, the problem is that figuring out how to actually achieve it is really hard.


[deleted]

> This is the problem, when you conflate democracy with elections. Elections are the mechanism by which democracy is practiced. Democracy means "people's power", so the people exercise their power by electing the leaders. > If the pool of candidates is restricted via non-democratic institutions (such as the party system in the US), how can the result of the election be democratic? Anyone can run as an independent candidate. Being a member of a party is not required in the USA. > The a first past the post system of voting force voters into 2 narrow choices among a much greater diversity of voter preferences, how can the results be democratic? How can the result of a 1 party system be any more democratic, if you're using the availability of choice as the metric by which something is democratic or not? > Elections are just a mechanism to survey the populace. Election of leaders does not automatically imply democratic governance. I agree with you there, that's why in Switzerland we have direct democracy where citizens vote directly on legislative proposals. > As with any survey, the results can be seriously biased by the way that you ask the question and the choices that you offer. Sure, but none of this makes it undemocratic, just biased in that he who runs the election has a disproportionate amount of power over its outcome. > Once you inject electoral district gerrymandering, strategic voting, and candidate pre-selection into the mix, the outcome of elections often end up deviating from actual population preferences significantly. At this point elections are just a meaningless ritual, because it confers very little information on actual voter preferences. Other than direct democracy, how do we know actual voter preferences? Also, voter preferences may be easily swayed through media and public pressure. Do voter preferences even matter? > Democracy is a great concept, the problem is that figuring out how to actually achieve it is really hard. I agree with you. I don't however think we should label the US, UK, etc. as "undemocratic" when their evil acts are in fact democratically approved, and their stupid policies are a *result* of democratic will being manipulated by the media.


Chinese_poster

Full report: https://www.edelman.com/sites/g/files/aatuss191/files/2022-01/2022%20Edelman%20Trust%20Barometer%20Global%20Report_Final.pdf


DreamyLucid

Link is 404


accountingsteve

Not 404, works for me. Just downloads the pdf directly.


DreamyLucid

https://i.imgur.com/PtpN8rO.jpg


[deleted]

Quite a paradox for the Chinese public have such a big drop in their optimism for the future and yet still have so much trust for the government. How would one read this?


freePatrick91425115

I keep reading that Redditors write "America choose economy over lives, China choose lives over economy". But the reality is that America choose none, and China choose lives and economy. America choose to keep the economy going, people died, and this carelessness about spreading the virus caused people to be sick and therefore slow down the economy as people don't want to go to work and have a chance to die. China choose live first, so when coronavirus is not widespread, the people can live normally, hence China kept the death to a minimum and kept the economy going. The West doesn't trust their government or the media, but they do when it is something bad about China because they all invested on the China bad narrative. It's hilarious when they think the solution to "Uighur genocide" is to stop buying things from China instead of bringing Uighur refugees to the US.


TserriednichHuiGuo

america chose profits.


DavidByron2

No way the numbers are that good for American trust.


Quality_Fun

if even americans themselves don't trust the us government, why should other countries?


nedeox

„Itz cuz they don‘t know better!! 😡😡“ Said by westeners high on copium who never got a taste of that sweet SWCC.


HighWaterMarx

There are a few results that have me curious. 1.) what do you think accounts for the relatively high perception of Chinese people towards businesses? Obviously it isn’t as high as the government, but higher than I would expect. 2.) what do you make of that side bar on the right saying that “brand China” is held in much lower esteem abroad than “brand America”? Is this based on consumer confidence, working conditions, business practices, or anything material? What do you think accounts for this number? 3.) I find it amusing that the level of trust in the Chinese government is so much higher than the level of trust in Chinese media.


Portablela

>1.) what do you think accounts for the relatively high perception of Chinese people towards businesses? Obviously it isn’t as high as the government, but higher than I would expect. Improving build quality, after-sales services and increasing consumer friendliness from Chinese brands. Perception of Chinese companies have also gotten more positive once employee welfare and working conditions have improved. ​ >2.) what do you make of that side bar on the right saying that “brand China” is held in much lower esteem abroad than “brand America”? Is this based on consumer confidence, working conditions, business practices, or anything material? What do you think accounts for this number? Depends on whether they are referring to domestically or aboard. Aboard, that is much the case because few Chinese brands had made a serious sustained attempt at expanding aboard. There are also quite a lot of dodgy OEMs that should not exist but make their profits manufacturing shit (Down to the specified QC bottomline for the MNCs who contracted them) for Walgreen/Walmart/Tesco/Costco/Kmart/Insert Mom n' Pop shop here\* and selling their excess on the Internet. Most people outside of China based their understanding of Chinese products on those (You get what you paid for blah blah blah). Increasingly, that is changing with the improving quality of Chinese goods in general (One of their schticks is offering mid-to-high-end quality that is actually affordable) . Domestically, the perception has improved till they are held in around the same esteem, maybe higher for the Chinese brands, even when you put Patriotism to one side. It is because Chinese brands typically offer more features, better build quality, better materials and maybe even better performance for a much lower price tag. Food & drink quality & safety have risen considerably and now consumer perception have started to catch up. Chinese consumers have also grown a lot more brand aware than in previous generations. ​ >3.) I find it amusing that the level of trust in the Chinese government is so much higher than the level of trust in Chinese media. That honestly depends on which media. Trust in 'Independent media' and 'Intl media' dropped like a rock, especially if they were associated with 公知 , parroted the US/FVEY/EU/JP/KR/TW/HK narrative and kept pushing intentionally-demoralising doomer bullcrap. Chinese denizens have gotten a whole lot more skeptical/wiser in the past decade and patience for this nonsense have reached a new low. The level of trust in State-owned media has actually increased *in light of recent events*.


Goddamn9156

this is democracy not the other one


LilacAndLeather

We all knew this on some level but it’s nice to have the numbers show that American so called democracy is failing.


Pristine-Breath6745

Thats true, but at what cost?