Comment on .ml has got to be the only place on earth where I'd get downvoted for a comment like this
ClamDrinker@lemmy.world 1 day agoYou really should know how silly this makes you look, even to someone sharing your judgement of how democratic those processes are in NK or China. They’re just explaining how things work in the political systems of those countries objectively.
If you’re from the US - someone can explain to you how the electoral college works without making a judgement on whether or not that’s democratic or not. If you’re not from the US, many democratic systems have such mechanics like indirect appointments or indirect voting, whether good or bad.
Objective knowledge gives you the power to form better opinions and take action, including for those systems of power that you are a part of. Rejecting such knowledge carte blanche because it’s about a country you don’t like is incredibly self defeating in the long term. It makes you easy to manipulate.
T00l_shed@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Look i know how these countries operate. Saying they do “x” doesn’t mean it to be true. Its not hard to understand
ClamDrinker@lemmy.world 1 day ago
You say that, but you also claimed out of nowhere that they said NK holds fair elections. Which they clearly didn’t. So if you aren’t misunderstanding what they’re trying to tell you - why are you putting words into their mouth and being combative for no reason? You’re basically admitting you’re intentionally baiting them.
T00l_shed@lemmy.world 1 day ago
It was that they are democratic. I’m not baiting them, this stupid thing has been going on for so long lol
ClamDrinker@lemmy.world 1 day ago
But if you understood what they were trying to say as you said you did, you would understand they’re not claiming that is de facto what NK is. They’re just saying what NK is on paper. Even sham governments frequently live in the shadow of legitimacy cast by what their system does on paper and still follow protocol even if parameters are tightly controlled for a certain outcome. So a lot of this could have been avoided by not fighting that premise and reiterating your point differently. Such as with Xi, you did not mean to deny he wasn’t elected by the NPC instead of the people, but you wanted to deny the legitimacy of the entire process including the NPC. So say that instead of denying the former. “Even if he’s indirectly elected, the process as a whole is a sham.” or “You’re right, he is indirectly elected. But that doesn’t change my point, the legitimacy of that election is also a sham.”, and none of this would have been necessary.