Yeah, installing oneself as President For Life is a paragon of democracy.
While I'm here, my other nitpick is the "China might have the 2nd most billionaires, but they aren't afraid to jail one of them and are therefore the spitting image of Kropotkin!" If that's the case, then hell, let's throw all our hats into Russia's ring where they routinely assassinate and jail billionaire oligarchs, and therefore Russia's model is what we should seek to emulate. This reductive reasoning is so damn basic and an affront to any deep thinking.
If being critical of my government will incur visits from state authorities or get me jailed, as well as have impacts on my financial, social, professional, and family's future, then you can bet those answers are under Stockholm Syndrome duress. If you think self-reporting is the airtight, end-all, be-all of cross-sectional studies, then you're on some Jonestown Kool-Aid.
But will it? Do you have any evidence at all to support the idea that responding negatively to a poll will get people jailed or that that is a fear of Chinese people? You've constructed a perfect rhetorical shield, where high support of the government is proof of low support of the government. But it doesn't match with the data. The second link explicitly discusses the change over time in government approval and how it correlates with material changes in what the government does and delivers.
If being critical of my government will incur visits from state authorities or get me jailed, as well as have impacts on my financial, social, professional, and family’s future, then you can bet those answers are under Stockholm Syndrome duress.
Uh yet you still feel free to criticize the US despite this being the literal, actual reality in the US as we speak
Yeah, installing oneself as President For Life is a paragon of democracy.
While I'm here, my other nitpick is the "China might have the 2nd most billionaires, but they aren't afraid to jail one of them and are therefore the spitting image of Kropotkin!" If that's the case, then hell, let's throw all our hats into Russia's ring where they routinely assassinate and jail billionaire oligarchs, and therefore Russia's model is what we should seek to emulate. This reductive reasoning is so damn basic and an affront to any deep thinking.
So just to be clear, you do know better than the people of China?
Edit: To make it obvious what I'm talking about, since you probably didn't read anything I linked: 73% of Chinese citizens consider their country a democracy. This is 20-30% higher than Western nations, excepting Scandinavian countries. Also, Chinese people have an overhelmingly positive view of the central government's performance, and this is only improving over time.
If being critical of my government will incur visits from state authorities or get me jailed, as well as have impacts on my financial, social, professional, and family's future, then you can bet those answers are under Stockholm Syndrome duress. If you think self-reporting is the airtight, end-all, be-all of cross-sectional studies, then you're on some Jonestown Kool-Aid.
But will it? Do you have any evidence at all to support the idea that responding negatively to a poll will get people jailed or that that is a fear of Chinese people? You've constructed a perfect rhetorical shield, where high support of the government is proof of low support of the government. But it doesn't match with the data. The second link explicitly discusses the change over time in government approval and how it correlates with material changes in what the government does and delivers.
Uh yet you still feel free to criticize the US despite this being the literal, actual reality in the US as we speak
"US bad therefore China good!"
Did I say that? Or did I point out the inherent flaw in your reasoning?