Much of this description applies pretty well to western countries, especially the US.
In addition, the Chinese court system is simply a tool of the government to keep themselves in power. Reference the 99.9% conviction rate: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/121932...
I'm not sure I entirely agree with that. It's true, the two systems are significantly different, but I don't think that rules out that Americans are subject to a form of indoctrination. Look at the stranglehold the two parties have on the electoral system in the US. Just as one example, what happened to Bernie Sanders in the last election barely raised an eyebrow. If you listen to Dan Carlin's Common Sense podcast for several weeks on either side of the last election (particularly after), I'd say it's pretty hard to make a case that the system isn't rigged to a fairly large degree, but how many people are actually aware of this?
I don't know if indoctrination is the perfect word for it, but constantly singing the praises of the system of democracy, while realistically the only alternatives people get have to go through a very thorough pre-screening for "suitability", and almost no one ever asks what the hell is really going on here, seems like a relative of some sort to indoctrination.
I'm not so sure about that either. I'd be surprised if the average Chinese person wasn't fairly well aware that they live in a censored world, and that a government that does that might also bend the truth a bit on the evening news. The average American on the other hand, and even the above average judging by most forums I frequent, seem to be under the impression that the US is truly the land of the free, the home of the brave, with a completely free press (not unlike the completely free electoral system), and that what they see and hear in the news is generally trustworthy and comprehensive.
Chinese people may not know the truth, but I'm pretty sure they know it's being hidden from them. People in the West, defenders of the free world, who not only seem unable to see the various pink elephants that are right in front of their eyes, but will attack and condemn anyone who points them out, worry me a lot more than the indoctrinated in plain sight Chinese.
But hey, that's just me.
It's far from uncommon for a reporter to explicitly say "by the way, the government told me not to disclose this information but I'm gonna do it anyway".
What the American government doesn't do is require citizens to believe it's great, or forbid them from saying it's not. If you get on a soapbox and talk about how the system was rigged against Bernie Sanders, a lot of Americans will think you're being silly, but none of them will think that you should be arrested for subversion.
Actually, I'm not.
If two countries both engage in indoctrination, in different forms and to different degrees, pointing out that one is different, or does it to a lesser degree, is not a proof that they do not do it in the first place.
> There's no way to deny that the American government thinks it's great, and puts in effort to convince people that it's great. That's the explicit goal of e.g. civics education.
I feel like you're implicitly suggesting that's all they do.
> What the American government doesn't do is require citizens to believe it's great, or forbid them from saying it's not.
That isn't a prerequisite for indoctrination, and only a prerequisite for certain kinds of censorship.
> If you get on a soapbox and talk about how the system was rigged against Bernie Sanders, a lot of Americans will think you're being silly, but none of them will think that you should be arrested for subversion.
Of course. But indoctrination and censorship can take many forms, and can be very hard to spot when done well. It also helps if the private sector engages in it so the government doesn't have to.
Superdelegates in the Democratic primary are the following:
1. Elected members of the DNC 2. Democratic governors 3. Democratic members of Congress 4. Former Democratic Presidents, Vice Presidents, congressional leaders, and DNC Chairs.
The majority of them are elected officials currently holding office. The rest are formerly elected officials, and a minority. It's called an indirect election. That is not 'rigging'. The closest thing to rigging here would be category 4.
That this is even possible is as much a criticism of the process as it is a compliment.
Honest question: if you were designing a brand new system to elect the leader of the US, how likely do you expect it would be for someone of his calibre to be the last person standing?
> 1. Elected members of the DNC 2. Democratic governors 3. Democratic members of Congress 4. Former Democratic Presidents, Vice Presidents, congressional leaders, and DNC Chairs. The majority of them are elected officials currently holding office. The rest are formerly elected officials, and a minority.
Was this structure designed by the founding fathers? What percentage of Americans would you say really understand that a small group of undemocratically unelected people like this has the ability to directly block undesirable (to whom we don't really know) candidates from making it to the election? How many people do you think approve of this structure.
> That is not 'rigging'.
For certain definitions of rigged, of course. If the actual nature of this system was clearly explained to the American people, do you think most people would agree with you?
No, this is a primary, as in, it is how the democratic party elects its own representative to run for president.
>What percentage of Americans would you say really understand that a small group of undemocratically unelected people like this has the ability to directly block undesirable (to whom we don't really know) candidates from making it to the election?
In 2016, 20 of 716 were in category 4, i.e., those who aren't currently holding office as a result of having been voted in. The rest are currently holding an office for which they were voted in. In other words, democratically elected.
Superdelegates and how they function is common knowledge for anyone following or participating in the primary. It's heavily covered and talked about every presidential election cycle.
>How many people do you think approve of this structure.
According to a poll run by Rasmussen in 2016, likely democratic voters approved of it at a rate of 30%.
>For certain definitions of rigged, of course. If the actual nature of this system was clearly explained to the American people, do you think most people would agree with you?
Americans understand very well how the election system works. 'Rigged' implies deception or fraudulence.
That's actually a pretty convincing argument, I think I'll have to concede victory.
The US has had credit collapses before, and has relatively robust institutions to deal with it. Robustness that has developed through major crashes.
This is largely true of most developed economies as well.
China's credit bust will be epic - epicly bad, both for China and the rest of the world, but mostly for the Chinese people.
The fact that you're being downvoted is just more evidence, people hate being told they're just as indoctrinated into propaganda as China is, but they're just as indoctrinated into their own version.