|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4
|
 |
|
Author
|
Topic: Trust issues (Read 5256 times)
|
Zanthius
Enlightened
 Offline
Posts: 941
|
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 01, 2017, 05:07:42 pm by Zanthius »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Zanthius
Enlightened
Offline
Posts: 941
|
I have written about this now:
http://archania.org/criteria_for_a_healthy_democracy.html
Here is a music video related to this problem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2frJ3e0hxPE
Here is something I read about why the level of trust is so high in China:
At first glance, it is counter-intuitive that an authoritarian government needs to respond to public opinion, since authoritarian leaders do not have to face any meaningful elections at the national level. However, our research demonstrates that an absence of meaningful national elections does not indicate an absence of public political demand. While it is true that, on average, satisfaction with the national government is high, it is by no means perfect, or monolithic. In fact, about 65 percent of the public in China reports at least some degree of dissatisfaction with the central government. This dissatisfaction appears to be “listened to” by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which claims to represent the interests of “most” Chinese people.
Lacking elections as an effective yardstick to measure such representativeness, the CCP is paranoid about every single protestor on the street. While resorting to coercive methods whenever necessary, it also feels compelled to respond to public demand when possible. Thus, while media control, economic performance and cultural tradition are not entirely irrelevant, they are a relatively small part of the explanation for why political trust is so high in China. In fact, our ongoing analysis of more recent public opinion survey data suggests that such responsiveness accounts for more than 50 percent of the variation in political trust. In other words, government responsiveness is by far the most important reason for the high level of political trust in China.
This is not to say that China’s government model guarantees political stability despite lacking the institutional mechanisms of free and fair elections. Public sentiment is sensitive to major political events, such as a bad policy or the fall of a major leader. Public opinion can also quickly turn into public grievance, and regime legitimacy and political stability could be directly threatened as result. Indeed, we found that the major source of national government popularity (or lack of it), besides the trust factor itself, was policy performance. In particular, when the central government fails to deliver adequate local services, the public expresses increased dissatisfaction with it.
http://thediplomat.com/2013/06/government-for-the-people-in-china/
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 06, 2017, 03:49:12 pm by Zanthius »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Scalare
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 245
|
How do you treat the varying demands of a diverse population?
Rich people will want more responsiveness on lowering taxes, poor people on better welfare etc.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 3874
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
The starting image, of a climber on the edge of a cliff, seems a bit off. I don't think it would convince anyone of anything, and could get people to dismiss whatever follows.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Zanthius
Enlightened
Offline
Posts: 941
|
The starting image, of a climber on the edge of a cliff, seems a bit off. I don't think it would convince anyone of anything, and could get people to dismiss whatever follows.
I live in a country where we have free healthcare, free universities, and so on. Mothers get almost 1 year full salary after giving birth. Kindergartens are heavily subsidized. We get tons of help from the government in my country. So I think most people in my country would consider it to be a good metaphor, but maybe not in your country.
Anyhow. I didn't create that image, so it is not mine, and I am not going to use it in any of my documents.
I have made separate pages for all of the main sections in the "blueprint for a progressive world democracy".
http://www.archania.org/
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 06, 2017, 07:55:14 pm by Zanthius »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Scalare
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 245
|
One thing that is glaringly obvious, atleast where I'm standing, is that western democracy isn't really a democracy and our politicians lie and come back on their promises regularly.
Even when the people speak up and ask for a referendum, which was possible by law a while ago, these politicians can twist and turn and disregard that referendum. As it stands now the law that enables the people to have such a referendum, has been cancelled.
Normally you would expect uprisings, people taking to the streets, heavy dissatisfaction all over. But aside from a few 'dissidents', the general population remains quiet.
I think I know why that is. We're wealthy, educated, healthy and happy. So we don't have a reason to blame the government for our misfortune. That's why it can continue to do these maleveloent practices which have nothing to do with democracy.
Also, it appears that politics is really more about power than about actually caring about the people you represent. People who care aren't succesful enough to be voted into their governmental seats.
That, and the general population is really only interested in what thay read in the newspapers, see on TV and internet.
They only outcry about something after they have read a snappy article about it with a sensational headline. But after a month, nobody cares about whatever it was that was written anymore, and people move along with their daily lives.
All these media are by and large controlled by the western governments and companies. For example pro-russian, pro-muslim or pro-china articles never reach us, or atleast not in sufficient numbers to have any impact.
The people's opinion of the govt is mainly controlled by the media. If they read soothing articles they will be passive. If they read sensational articles they will outcry about it -- for a few days, at their work's lunch table, in a bar or share a post about it on facebook, and then move on with their lives until another sensational artticle appears. In the future controlling the media will become easier and easier, since less and less open minded humans are actually writing these articles (the simpler articles get written by alrogithms with a good understanding of the English language). Also, machine learning is already enabling google, facebook and twitter to show you only tweets, articles and sites that you are interested in, but with enough computer power and money pumped into them it could also be used to influence the opinion of the masses. Kinda like the thingy you proposed where researchers would use machine learning to determine which foods are unhealthy, you could use it to measure what content is neccesary for each person to see to sway his opinion about a certain subject into a certain direction.
Anyway, that's how we get indoctrinated in a very subtle way to keep passive. By keeping us well-fed, wealthy, well-educated and happy, and by controlling the media.
When time passes, this will get easier and easier due to technological advances and globalisation of companies. However, keep in mind that Russia and China are doing the same on their side, but we don't really know about this because we don't really saturate our news with it.
Eventually WW3 could happen and we wouldn't know about it until it is already on our doorstep. Then again, by having kept ourselves dumb and passive for so long we will always have the excuse 'Wir haben es nicht gewusst'.
PS: In the referendum that was held, I disagreed with the people opting for that referendum. But I believe that now the 'people have spoken' it should be upheld.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 07, 2017, 04:25:27 am by Scalare »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Krulle
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1115
*Hurghi*! Krulle is *spitting* again!
|
PS: In the referendum that was held, I disagreed with the people opting for that referendum. But I believe that now the 'people have spoken' it should be upheld. That's what I like best about May.
She was against a BrExit, she was against a referendum.
And here she is the currently strongest pusher for the Brexit. Because the people told the government they want it. (They may have done so for the wrong reasons, but there were enough publications showing the lies of the pro-Brexit side.)
She is helping Europe forward.
Despite me not liking the politics, I love her guts to push it through. (And if no-one had done the Brexit, a new referendum would've ensued a few years later, because the Brexit-team would have told the people that they have been cheated from their Brexit, and that all would have been much better by now if the Government would've followed the first referendum.)
And I love that she is so pro-democratic that she pushes for something a majority of people voted FOR, despite it not having been her agenda.
She does what the real Brexit team is too chicken to do themselves. (I bet they are preparing their speeches "I would've handled it much better than Ms. May did. Vote for me!" already now. Yes, Mr. Johnson, I am thinking about you.)
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Zanthius
Enlightened
Offline
Posts: 941
|
All these media are by and large controlled by the western governments and companies. For example pro-russian, pro-muslim or pro-china articles never reach us, or atleast not in sufficient numbers to have any impact.
I think this is mostly related to inadequate language skills of the journalists, and possibly related to that people aren't necessarily so interested in reading insightful news from "far away". I seriously doubt that the western European newspapers have an agenda to create disharmony in the world. I think they want to sell as much as possible, and that they are limited by the language skills of the journalists working for them.
Anyhow. I have a friend from Russia, that I hadn't seen for many years, which I met in Prague a few months ago. He told me that some western European journalists had been really rude to him, when interviewing him. And that I think is completely unacceptable. Even if many western Europeans don't like Putin, we need to be polite and respectful when we meet people from other countries in general.
Btw. Have you seen this Russian Rammstein song? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJboSby7nW0
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 07, 2017, 11:54:59 am by Zanthius »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Scalare
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 245
|
PS: In the referendum that was held, I disagreed with the people opting for that referendum. But I believe that now the 'people have spoken' it should be upheld. That's what I like best about May. She was against a BrExit, she was against a referendum. And here she is the currently strongest pusher for the Brexit. Because the people told the government they want it. (They may have done so for the wrong reasons, but there were enough publications showing the lies of the pro-Brexit side.) She is helping Europe forward. Despite me not liking the politics, I love her guts to push it through. (And if no-one had done the Brexit, a new referendum would've ensued a few years later, because the Brexit-team would have told the people that they have been cheated from their Brexit, and that all would have been much better by now if the Government would've followed the first referendum.) And I love that she is so pro-democratic that she pushes for something a majority of people voted FOR, despite it not having been her agenda. She does what the real Brexit team is too chicken to do themselves. (I bet they are preparing their speeches "I would've handled it much better than Ms. May did. Vote for me!" already now. Yes, Mr. Johnson, I am thinking about you.)
Exactly! I disagree with brexit, but now that the people have spoken, it should be upheld.
Fun thing about May is that after the recent terrorist attacks the dutch TV channel NOS reported on it, but edited May's speech. They left out the word 'muslim' to color their report. The same channel also called the dutch prime minister to ask 'what should we do???' when a person came into their studio with a gun, instead of reporting the actual news they put the channel on black and asked the prime minister for advice :').
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Scalare
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 245
|
All these media are by and large controlled by the western governments and companies. For example pro-russian, pro-muslim or pro-china articles never reach us, or atleast not in sufficient numbers to have any impact.
I think this is mostly related to inadequate language skills of the journalists, and possibly related to that people aren't necessarily so interested in reading insightful news from "far away". I seriously doubt that the western European newspapers have an agenda to create disharmony in the world. I think they want to sell as much as possible, and that they are limited by the language skills of the journalists working for them. Anyhow. I have a friend from Russia, that I hadn't seen for many years, which I met in Prague a few months ago. He told me that some western European journalists had been really rude to him, when interviewing him. And that I think is completely unacceptable. Even if many western Europeans don't like Putin, we need to be polite and respectful when we meet people from other countries in general. Btw. Have you seen this Russian Rammstein song? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJboSby7nW0
Atleast in the Netherlands there are numerous ex-employees that wrote books about the media and how it's bought by the govt.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scalare
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 245
|
I could also find a research paper about indoctrination by AI if you want  .
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Krulle
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1115
*Hurghi*! Krulle is *spitting* again!
|
I can understand if you double post to reply to different discussions, but please edit your post in cases like this.
I also assume you broke a "quote" tage somewhere in the post above.
Media in the Netherlands is bought by the government through the (previous) "postbus 51" information actions. That brings a lot of money to the TV-medias, and in a now different form also to the printed newspapers.
I actually like them, and the distribution of the money is one by reach of the media. It goes more or less independent from the government. It's government money, but it's spent indiscriminate across all media to make sure that the public did have access to important announcements and informations.
The content though is sometimes more political than informational, and those are the ones I object to.
In Germany I often missed important information, as there was (and is) no "push" system to get important information passed to the public.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4
|
|
|
|
|
