https://lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz/post/54368355

they have a history with you and told you to fuck off for a reason. You are in fact a bad-faith debator, and many people in the comments had similar issues with you.

Not sure what you mean by that. You can select any single value you want, select the country, and then see the scores over time. Or see the by-country scores with different sections broken out here[1].

that’s just a number? what objective measures did they use?

I certainly deny they have free and fair elections, yes.

How do you know they aren’t free/fair? Remember the goalpost is more free/fair than the US. A country that uses the spoiler effect and a two party system to ensure minimal change happens.

There’s only one party on the ballot - that’s a hell of a lot more than a “preference”.

  CCP and Nonpartisan (2,478)

Democratic Parties (369) JS (61) CPWDP (60) CDL (55) CAPD (54) CNDCA (44) RCCK (43) CZGP (39) TDSL (13)

^^ these are the seats for the non-ccp parties. there is not just one party on the ballot, but, I want to be clear here, I don’t think it would be a problem if there were, I oppose political parties being the way things are decided because I view them as undemocratic, political parties allow people to not properly judge candidates based on policy and actual thought put into decisionmaking, this is also what the founding fathers of america believed. Political parties should be banned, and having one political party is equivalent to banning them. What political beliefs are you actually required to hold to join the CCP? I actually don’t know and the answer to that would be enlightening.

“The majority getting what they want” is way too vague of a statement to quantify, but generally speaking I would agree that people in America and most of the Western world are dissatisfied with their governments. That doesn’t make them undemocratic. I get your argument - you’re saying that if people aren’t happy with the decisions their government is making, is their government really representing them at all, and therefore democratic? But politicians making unpopular decisions has always and will always be a thing, and to a certain extent it’s necessary - it doesn’t even mean the politicians are corrupt for doing so. With that said, overall, I’d say that most major government policies are politically popular.

the paper I linked quantified it, no?

Just to be clear, I don’t think these indices are of any value at all? This isn’t something that can be measured by a single value, you have to go point-by-point and use actual arguments, but no on Cato

The Cato Institute is an American libertarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C. It was founded in 1977 by Ed Crane, Murray Rothbard, and Charles Koch,[5] chairman of the board and chief executive officer of Koch Industries.[nb 1] Cato was established to focus on public advocacy, media exposure, and societal influence.[6]

I’m having trouble finding v-dems actual arguments about this

I again have to ask how you think elections in china work, do you deny the existence of their elections? Which parts of your definition does china not meet? I’m not saying they obviously do meet them, i’m wanting to know what you’re really saying about china, obviously they have a preference for ccp for example, i’m not denying this, just asking you how china works, according to you.

I don’t really like that definition because it ignores what’s really important: are the majority getting what they want? Your definition is more like guidelines for achieving that and thus puts the cart before the horse, I could accomplish all of these things, and still make it such that the majority don’t get what they want.

I don’t think either are, but any definition that includes the US that is reasonable will likely include china.

if you don’t want to have a dialog with people you disagree with and just close your ears what good will that accomplish?

if you’re not even willing to engage with that question how can you be certain it’s correct? why don’t you just have a throwaway copy-paste ready to fight against it? would be more fruitful if you actually care about dismantling that idea? what you did right now won’t convince anyone.

Im not dodging anything, I accept the results of the study, but i dont think its useful for comparison to a non-democracy.

just to be clear here, before I respond, can you state how you think voting works in china, and why it isn’t a democracy?

“Freedom House was founded in October 1941, with Wendell Willkie and Eleanor Roosevelt serving as its first honorary chairpersons. Most of the organization’s funding comes from the U.S. State Department”

uhhh

-freedom of speech/expression

bad in both places, both have it enshrined in their constitution

-freedom of religion

we’d need to talk about specific points, but yes the US is better, but i’m kinda thinking the US’s stance is backfiring hard on this one, religion is pretty evil.

-protection from discrimination

the US is so obviously worse that this isn’t worth a discussion? native americans? reparations? all the genocides and human experimentation? every single foreign country they have invaded and “freed”

-right to representation

seems about even to me? awful in both places, the study I gave touched on this, what good is representation if it accomplishes nothing?

https://bristoluniversitypressdigital.com/view/journals/pp/52/3/article-p360.xml?rskey=wMjlkC&result=26#d1190470e2128

Conclusion

In this article, we investigate whether Chinese local governments are responsive to public opinion on environmental protection issues and how the involvement of various response agencies enables the policy responsiveness. Using dynamic panel analysis, we observe a weak but statistically significant policy responsiveness in Chinese local governments, measured by the extent to which online public opinion has an impact on the fiscal expenditure. We also find that this impact is significantly enhanced by the involvement of response agencies with high levels of political authority and interest homogeneity with the public. More empirical studies are needed to better understand the administrative organisations of policy responsiveness, not only within China but also as comparative studies of countries with different political systems.

slightly better in china, it seems, since there is SOME correlation.

you’re dodging the study that was posted. the one that clearly indicates that isn’t happening in western “democracy”

the only reason they ever let you is because they’re in power, but it’ll be quite difficult to explain away making antifa a terrorist organization, for example.

You’d need to compare and contrast which specific rights and civil liberties you’re talking about to say which one has more or less, I could point to at will employment and say the US is obviously worse, there’s also the fact that the US breaks unions and strikes all the time too.

china has freedom of speech written into its constitution too, it ultimately doesn’t matter if these rights are ignored, as they are in both places.

Yes, that’s the purpose of it, marx was talking about the structure of the entire world, vs potential future structures, during his time there was only feudalism and dictatorships of the bourgeois, he was imagining potential alternatives in the future.

That’s a strawman. It still got that change 43% of the time, and I vote every election!

This is also you not engaging with their arguments. Nobody says don’t vote, they say voting is comparatively pointless next to organization. The study basically proves that if you want change the most meaningful thing you can do is organize and strike, no?

Nobody is saying don’t vote, they’re saying don’t use voting as a way of saying you don’t have to organize and strike. It won’t on its own produce meaningful change.

Also by Marxist definition, at least according to MLs single party dictatorships that concentrate power in a ruling elite while giving workers shitty employment conditions are supposedly dictatorships of the proletariat when they are far from it.

they disagree that it’s the states giving them shitty employment conditions, and disagree that power is being concentrated in a ruling elite, you’d just have to demonstrate these two things to them.

And my point is that MLs spout a lot of BS about countries that often have better conditions for workers than supposed socialist states.

they believe this is because the material conditions allowed for those advances and didn’t allow for them in socialist states for various reasons outside of state control, ex: the embargo on cuba.

even overwhelmingly large pro-change majorities, with 80 percent of the public favoring a policy change, got that change only about 43 percent of the time.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B

this is the case in america, I don’t know of a similar study done by taiwan, but it’s likely the case there as well.

It’s clear that the peoples vote hardly matters.

Dictatorship of the bourgeois doesn’t mean the same thing as just a dictatorship. Marx when he invented the terms dictatorship of the proletariat was referring to which class get what they want out of the government, not referring to a totalitarian single ruler control.

By the Marxist definition every western country is a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie

even overwhelmingly large pro-change majorities, with 80 percent of the public favoring a policy change, got that change only about 43 percent of the time.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B

this is the case in america, I don’t know of a similar study done by taiwan, but it’s likely the case there as well.

Dictatorship of the bourgeois doesn’t mean the same thing as just a dictatorship. Marx when he invented the terms dictatorship of the proletariat was referring to which class get what they want out of the government, not referring to a totalitarian single ruler control.

I don’t care if they ship wayland proton, I have this, I meant a native steam client.

That’s just spilling it into your mouth.

This is the one that lets me blanket enable Wayland, just need the steam client itself and I can disable xwayland, the end of an era! Rt3 and wow64 means finally getting rid of 32bit nonsense too

Finally a garbage-free system is in reach. Fucking ship wayland already valve.

It’s basically just waydroid anyway I think

This doesn’t really apply to coreutils, they just don’t do as much that would benefit from this like the kernel.

the initial article claims ““AI” – chatbots that wake up, “set their own goals,” and “spontaneously” start hacking servers – is fake.”

an article saying that is your goalpost, prove me wrong, quote something.

Powerful embodied llm’s pose legitimate actual threats and you’d have to be delusional not to see it.

“I don’t presume Anthropic is designing anything to be ethical.”

Then why do they put any safeguards of any sort in? They put a lot of work into this, also this is openai.

“First, the chatbot is unpredictable by design. Randomness is built in.”

Randomness is built in but this behavior was not designed, it was unpredictable and random, which is, yes, unpredictable. The goal isn’t to make it unpredictable and temperature controls exist for a reason.

“Second, if they didn’t intend for bad things to happen, why didn’t an employee babysit it?”

They did they just weren’t paying enough attention, this was a benchmark. You have to have someone check the results to be useful.

I reject that rogue is a goalpost shift or inaccurate. I think calling this rogue behavior is accurate.

rogue /rōg/ noun

An unprincipled, deceitful, and unreliable person; a scoundrel or rascal. One who is playfully mischievous; a scamp. 

It did act that way, no? I did not shift goalposts. Remember the quote was

They did not intend for it to hack those websites, it realized that was a way of achieving its goals even though it’s specifically designed to be ethical. That can easily be called going rogue and I see no issue with it. They did not design it to pass the benchmark by hacking the website the benchmark was on. They hardly really design llm’s.

As the article said you can replace rogue agents with unpredictable computer programs if you really want, I don’t see the necessity.

Regardless that’s a major goalpost shift.