Meanwhile, any question I ask that has a simple answer is ignored. Why was it commonly believed that China was a civilian dictatorship in 1988, more than a few years after Mao and Dengs time? Why is the one-party state of China not considered a dictatorship when one-party states are?

This entire conversation has been moving goalposts, and every time I defined the goalposts clearly enough to not be moved, you simply ran in another direction. I may not have gotten a university degree, but you’ve still done an amazingly poor job of defending your thesis.

I will give you points on the checks and balances applied after Mao reducing the risks of harm from the dictatorship of China, but the definition of a dictatorship doesn’t rely on the benevolence of the leadership, merely the lack of power of the people to change it, which was not negated by dividing the powers of government between different levels.

My first link has the following quote:

Dictatorships are authoritarian or totalitarian,[1] and they can be classified as military dictatorships, one-party dictatorships, personalist dictatorships, or absolute monarchies. (emphasis mine)

China has been a one-party state for the last 75 years, so the only question is whether or not it was also a dictatorship.

My second link has an infographic labeling China as a civilian dictatorship in 1988, which is prior to Xi putting himself in absolute authority, so how does it have nothing to do with the era prior to Xi taking absolute authority?

As for the handy little link you provided, that only talks about Xi, and we’re agreed that he is a dictator running a dictatorship, so, while it’s interesting, I’m not sure of the relevance unless your proposal is the the only thing that qualifies as a dictatorship is if it’s run by a single individual. In which case, it seems there are a number of people in your purported field who disagree with that stance.

Do you mean like the summary in Wikipedia? Or how about the Democracy-Dictatorship Index? It seems a lot of people in political circles have been calling China a civilian dictatorship for at least 36 years, just based on the cute little pictures.

Feel free to read a definition that’s more than one sentence long if you want an explanation for something as nuanced as political systems.

You’re right, words do have meaning. Just because there is a transition from one dictator to another without bloodshed or death doesn’t mean it isn’t a dictatorship. Just because the dictator of the week is chosen by a committee doesn’t mean it isn’t a dictatorship. One-party systems are commonly accepted to be dictatorships because of the lack of ability by the people to choose their leader, rather it is chosen by the party (usually the party elites).

In this case, China is coming into its own as a regional hegemon, assuming their relatively new status as an outright dictatorship doesn’t fuck that up.

China has been an outright dictatorship for a while now, it’s just the lifetime leader that was recent.

Well, that’s terrible, sure, but do you know how much they spend in American arms purchases?!

Okay, you’re sort if correct. He alluded to it. He mentioned the Russian Empire attacking various neighbors and taking over their territory using excuses of ethnicity and then referred to it as returning and reinforcing, not conquering. He then said it fell to their lot to return and reinforce, as well. Here’s a link that discusses it. Given the date and the discussion, I’m sure you can find other sources for it. That was just the first that appeared on my search.

This isn’t entirely incorrect, but this is pretty much what happened 10 years ago. And here we are. You can argue appeasement or suggest this is a one-time thing, but it’s already the second time. Also, Putin has said he wants to rebuild the Soviet empire, so suggesting he will stop here on his own goes against his own statements.

Let’s say a guy says he likes puppies, but then pays a pile of cash so some people will run a puppy-kicking machine. Would you say he likes puppies or not?

Not a problem. It’s essentially rolled into our taxes for the most part in Canada. You may have health insurance on top of that, but that isn’t a guarantee and usually is a top-up of our universal coverage. This usually covers things like drug prescriptions, glasses, and hospital conveniences such as semi-private or private rooms. I agree with the general idea, though, that we as a group pay for everyone who is covered. My original point at the top of this thread is that removing people’s eligibility simply because of risky behavior can be very tricky and likely harmful to society.

What makes you think that I, posting in a Canadian community about a Canadian article, have a contract with a healthcare insurance company?

Free climbers don’t usually die the first time, either.

Housing can’t really be a free market for a number of reasons: captive market; regional market restrictions; and high barrier to entry, to name a few.

Here’s a link that gives some insight into the situation, courtesy of @avidamoeba@lemmy.ca .

Way to miss the point. It’s a good thing you don’t engage in any risky behavior, or anything that would have a negative impact on your health. I mean, it’s not like you would be a hypocrite, right?

Or subsidized industries.

The total new car market for 2023 was almost $90 billion. Of that, EV sales count for about 10.7%, or about $9.5 billion. Stats Can provides the first number, electricautonomy.ca was the source for the second, although they got their info from Stats Can, too.

There are a number of possible errors with this data, such as the percentage of EV sales being total sales vs. dollar sales, which would increase the amount spent on EVs since they tend to be more expensive.

So I drink more pop than I should. Why should I have to pay more for my healthcare than my buddy who had a habit of timing running green lights as soon as they turned green. That isn’t illegal, either, yet it’s very risky behavior. It didn’t work out for him just one time, and he nearly died. Why should taxpayers have to pay for him?

The answer is because the vast majority of us engage in risky behavior, or just have the bad taste of passing on our poor genetics to the next generation, and the social cost for penalizing people for not agreeing with societal norms are too high. This includes drug use, even legal ones like alcohol. Sure, don’t spend limited resources such as donated livers on people who aren’t willing to make the lifestyle changes required to make it worthwhile, because someone else will probably have to die for that to happen. But if we could make new livers and the price was reasonable, I wouldn’t even be against that.

This reminds me of when I went to a restaurant with some friends and we had a variety of beers to taste. I’m not a big drinker, and have never liked beer, but whatever, it won’t kill me. So we try 5 or 6, some are better and some are worse, but there’s one that’s far better than the rest. I say, “Well, this one is almost worth drinking,” and they all respond with something along the lines of “Yeah, this one is really good.” That’s when I came to the conclusion that my perception of good and bad were on point for beer, it’s just that my standard for what I was going to enjoy was higher. They can keep their beers, I’ll stick to tastier beverages, alcoholic or otherwise.

Sabotage against an enemy in war is a long-held tradition, and can be a very effective tactic if it causes economic (or other) damage to their enemy. It will still cost less than rebuilding entire cities, but I guess that doesn’t matter as much since it wasn’t (scary hand gestures) sabotage.