I recommend you actually look up statistical relevance And what that means Compared to proof

So no other peer reviewed studies then? You’re a one article is absolute kind of guy? Good luck out there.

Likewise 30,000 people out of 1.3 billion is not going to be representative. Again do you have any other peer-reviewed studies or are you just basing your entire beliefs of one small sample study?

Yea, I’m sure all those folks in Hong Kong that were rioting approve of their new government overlords. I’m sure the Uyghurs would say they’re doing just a fine job. The article even mentions they didn’t ask laborers. I don’t disagree that they asked those people and they did respond that way. However whether people answer truthfully about their authoritarian government is a completely different thing. So yes, I do question this one single survey done of a small sample size and there’s really no way for them to account for everything. How many other peer reviewed studies do you have besides this one?

I would not trust any research that states 95% of people agree on almost anything, that’s extremely unlikely in any situation ever. Any study saying 95% of people approve of their government of all things sounds like coersion, faking, or simply a culture that fosters saying something regardless of truth. If you asked thousands of people in Russia if they approve of the government, they’ll say yes. But they aren’t being truthful. I’m betting they didn’t interview certain groups as well, as those folks are being killed by the Chinese govt. So yes one study saying one thing is definitely not enough to overcome the hurdles.

No it seems the problem is you appear to think because there are a few positives, the governments are functional. So I guess it depends on what you mean by functional. You are welcome to disagree, I was just clearing up what I meant. There are people that say at least Hitler made the trains run on time. I wouldn’t say functional though.

I apologize if my original statement was not clear, I was also following suit and meant nice for the individual. Essentially I was saying one governmental nicety doesn’t make up for the country’s govt being a cluster fuck. Having the government perform one thing functional is not the same as a functional government. That was my point.

Your original statement said must be nice as in it must be nice for the governed. Not that the country was being nice. The governments of both countries are complete garbage. Must be nice to have this one thing work is different than either being a functional government for its people.

I don’t think China or the US would be called nice in this regard.

The article you posted isn’t related to what he said. Can you explain what you disagree with? Just trying to understand the conversation, not siding one way or another.

Pizza pizza