• Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      3 days ago

      You played semantical games with Imperialism and Socialism. Your claims about the data having “literally no validity” weren’t semantics, they were just wrong, the data itself is good even if we can get more data elsewhere.

      • Kami@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        3 days ago

        The data is good even if data is missing. Really you can’t see anything wrong eight that? Man…

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          3 days ago

          This should be improved with adding more countries, like Russia, then comparing with other important data, like freedom of expression, to be somehow relevant to any discussion

          These would expand the data and make it more useful. There’s no missing data, though, the data as it exists stands on its own, it’s a comparison of different countries and approval, which is backed up in other studies on CPC approval rates among others.

          • Kami@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            3 days ago

            It’s also a comparison of how much people in those countries feel free of criticizing their government then.

            To be sure it isn’t we should include more countries, first of all, with different kinds of governments. That would be a good start at some kind of more objective discussion based on tangible things.

            • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              10
              ·
              edit-2
              3 days ago

              It isn’t, though. You have a hypothesis, so you need to test that hypothesis, not assume your hypothesis existing invalidates the test results. This is statistics 101.

              • Kami@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                3 days ago

                No, I simply have critical thinking that makes me unable to trust some random numbers.

                • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  10
                  ·
                  3 days ago

                  “Critical thinking” doesn’t mean test results aren’t test results, nor does it mean refusing to engage with Socialist critique on the basis of it being “propaganda.” You can certainly think of new tests that might shed new dimensions on the test results, but the test results are the test results, they exist and are valid for existing.

                  • Kami@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    4
                    ·
                    3 days ago

                    No, that’s not how it works. If you test something thatbis not even scientifically measurable over two different samples you aren’t testing shit. You are just throwing numbers around that don’t correlate to each other.