You 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 unconditionally because it’s about a country you don’t like (or anything you don’t like) is incredibly self defeating in the long term. It makes you easy to manipulate.
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?
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.
You 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 unconditionally because it’s about a country you don’t like (or anything you don’t like) is incredibly self defeating in the long term. It makes you easy to manipulate.
Look i know how these countries operate. Saying they do “x” doesn’t mean it to be true. Its not hard to understand
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?
It was that they are democratic. I’m not baiting them, this stupid thing has been going on for so long lol
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.