Comment on Tesla sales plunge 40% in Europe as Chinese EV rival BYD's triple
Ferrous@lemmy.ml 1 day agoYes… that is not only possible, but likely when n=5…
Please, the original claim was “Chinese people feel coerced”, which is wrong by every metric, and there is no evidence to support this claim.
Although China is certainly not immune from severe social and economic challenges, there is little evidence to support the idea that the CCP is losing legitima- cy in the eyes of its people. In fact, our survey shows that, across a wide variety of metrics, by 2016 the Chi- nese government was more popular than at any point during the previous two decades. On average, Chinese citizens reported that the government’s provision of healthcare, welfare, and other essential public services was far better and more equitable than when the survey began in 2003. Also, in terms of corruption, the drop in satisfaction between 2009 and 2011 was complete- ly erased, and the public appeared generally support- ive of Xi Jinping’s widely-publicized anti-corruption campaign. Even on the issue of the environment, where many citizens expressed dissatisfaction, the majority of respondents expected conditions to improve over the next several years. For each of these issues, China’s poorer, non-coastal residents expressed equal (if not even greater) confidence in the actions of government than more privileged residents. As such, there was no real sign of burgeoning discontent among China’s main demographic groups, casting doubt on the idea that the country was facing a crisis of political legitimacy.
…harvard.edu/…/final_policy_brief_7.6.2020.pdf
Let me guess: Harvard is tankie?
dude@lemmings.world 1 day ago
Did you actually read what you quote? It aligns with what I said - Chinese feel mostly satisfied with their government and don’t want the democracy, and don’t feel that their government is democratic. Claiming that Chinese believe that their country is democratic is not what Harvard did in the document that you’ve provided.
Regarding “not only possible but likely”: please do the math. If the share of population believing in X is 90%, the chance that none of the five selected people do X is (1 - 0.9)^5 = 0.001% (i.e., 1 in 100,000), assuming independence across people. That’s what you call likely?
PS. Why is this always the .ml instance 😀
Resonosity@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 hours ago
I read the Harvard source too, and nowhere were populations asked about democracy in their country. The researchers wanted to look at general satisfaction, and broke that down into surveys about the economy, government corruption, and environment.
Based on the Harvard study alone, neither you nor the Original Commenter (OC) can make claims about perceptions and desires about democracy in China.
However, OC did share the Democracy Perception Index. Looking at the 2024 report alone, Chinese people scored China at >75% democratic, and responded that democracy is >85% important to them. >50% of people believed that China had the right amount of democracy. Based on the data alone, we would believe that the majority of Chinese people 1) want democracy, 2) think China is democratic, and 3) don’t think the amount of democracy needs to change.
We can debate over whether this data is trustworthy. DPI researchers asked surveyees over the internet, which automatically rules out more rural and poorer groups in each society. But this was done for each country, so you might be able to say that the entire survey is moot. Internet surveys are much more susceptible to censorship too, which is why the Harvard study that involved face-to-face interviews is better imo.
Nonetheless, these are the sources that OC presented to support their claim. The majority of Chinese people want democracy, think they live in a democracy, and are satisfied with whatever government they live under, democracy or not.
The original point that OC responded to was whether Chinese people feel coerced by their government. I think the corruption part in the Harvard study and the government accountability part in the DPI reports clearly imply that this is not the case.
What evidence do you have to make the opposite case?