this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2023
8 points (100.0% liked)

GenZedong

4585 readers
63 users here now

This is a Dengist community in favor of Bashar al-Assad with no information that can lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton, our fellow liberal and queen. This community is not ironic. We are Marxists-Leninists.

This community is for posts about Marxism and geopolitics (including shitposts to some extent). Serious posts can be posted here or in /c/GenZhou. Reactionary or ultra-leftist cringe posts belong in /c/shitreactionariessay or /c/shitultrassay respectively.

We have a Matrix homeserver and a Matrix space. See this thread for more information. If you believe the server may be down, check the status on status.elara.ws.

Rules:

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 
all 41 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] CARCOSA@hexbear.net 6 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Now do homeownership, maternal mortality, hospital satisfaction, murder rates, suicide rates, reforestation efforts, wind/solar/water energy generation, and green technology development!

[–] GarfieldYaoi@hexbear.net 2 points 2 years ago

frothingfash: Yeah but....this system allows some "unworthy" people to not die, so it's clearly an authoritarian failure.

[–] CannotSleep420@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Clearly this means the evil see see pee is stealing our literacy.

[–] yogthos@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It's worse, they're forcing people to be literate. This is cultural genocide on an industrial scale with see see pee wiping out the culture of illiteracy!

[–] GrainEater@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 2 years ago

they just keep genociding slow trains and poverty and illiteracy, when will their evil regime stop

[–] purahna@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I hate to rain on y'all's parade, but the US measure of literacy is much more stringent than China's. America is counting literacy as the ability to use print materials like brochures and manuals fluently, the rest of the world just bases literacy on the ability to read a handful of test sentences in a controlled testing context. That's the reason that America appears to have gone down as well, they switched literacy measures. The 79% measure is people who are "at or below level 1 literacy", meaning it counts people who met level 1, people who didn't meet level 1, and people who couldn't even take the test at all because of a language barrier or disability. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2019/2019179.pdf

I'm all for dunking on America but the apples to apples here would be comparing America's 96% (just excluding those below level 1) to China's 97%. Historical materialism requires a true material basis to work.

[–] plumbercraic@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Ok i thought for sure this is bullshit, but apparently not:

Four in five U.S. adults (79 percent) have English literacy skills sufficient to complete tasks that require comparing and contrasting information, paraphrasing, or making low-level inferences—literacy skills at level 2 or above in PIAAC (OECD 2013). In contrast, one in five U.S. adults (21 percent) has difficulty completing these tasks (figure 1). This translates into 43.0 million U.S. adults who possess low literacy skills

Source: https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2019/2019179/index.asp

[–] booty@hexbear.net 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I didn't believe it until I started working. Now if you asked me what the literacy rate is I'd say sub-50%. I've met so many people who literally cannot read. As in, they've clearly been taught what the letters are and how to sound them out, but following a list of instructions based on those letters is completely impossible for them.

[–] Trudge@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Your assessment is probably closer to the truth. 54% of American adults have a literacy below sixth grade level link and some of the people you've met probably are considered barely literate yet counts towards the 79%.

A curious statistic I've found while reading up on this is that 77% of African Americans have moderate or high reading proficiency while only 65% of white Americans qualify as such. A statistic that you'll never see racists mention (and libs for those that somehow fit outside the venn diagram)

[–] axont@hexbear.net 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

I haven't done any research on this, but my gut says it's because black people are more likely to live in urban areas with at least the basics of public education. Whereas white people comprise more rural areas. Not saying living in a rural area makes you illiterate, like I grew up in a small town in the woods, but it does mean there's just less of everything, including education. More homeschooling too among white people.

Could also be that white people take education less seriously because they don't feel threatened by a hostile job market. Did your readings say why there's a disparity between demographics?

[–] Trudge@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 2 years ago

It was just a cute factoid that I noted, so I didn't look further into the claims.

Your theory could be correct. Another reason I suspect is that due to racial biases and different job market situation arising from the urban/rural divide, black Americans are forced to be more literate in order to survive compared to the average white American.

[–] ApexHunter@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

There is no way US literacy in the 1950s was anywhere near 90% unless you excluded marginalized and minority populations.

[–] yogthos@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 2 years ago

Excellent point, and that's likely exactly how they counted it.

[–] Treczoks@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Does anyone think of the poor old GOP? The GOP needs stupid, illiterate people! Who else is going to vote for them if people got smarter and better educated?

[–] comfy@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago

The Dems sure weren't thinking of the poor old GOP in the 42 years they simultaneously held both reps and senate in that era (58% of 72 years). The system needs stupid, illiterate people to tolerate it.

[–] dinklesplein@hexbear.net 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

well the stats come from the chinese government, are you just going to trust their stats? they're probably lying about the numbers, don't be so gullible!1!!11

[–] keepcarrot@hexbear.net 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

This is the final refuge of the person that uses Chinese stat's to prove Uigher genocide through some sort of numerology

[–] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.ml -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

final refuge

Very often the first and only one.

[–] ksynwa@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Can someone fill me on the terms "homeless" vs. "unhoused"? Why is the latter being used more now?

[–] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.ml -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

iirc the term "homeless" imply being a complete social outcast, while those people are in fact part of society often with jobs, families, friends etc. The only thing they lack is the physical house, therefore unhoused.

But as other posters noticed, the shift is also a liberal platitutide instead of action.

[–] VolatileExhaustPipe@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The shift wasn't initiated by liberals though, they are quick to adapt to new phrasing though if it means not having to take action that cost money as austerity rules supreme.

Yeah idk where it originated exactly, but the term itself suggest it was coined by someone actually having some empathy and brains, while liberals are famously lacking on both departments. Ultimately Engels is as always correct about the libs "These gentlemen think that when they have changed the names of things they have changed the things themselves."

[–] smik@discuss.tchncs.de -2 points 2 years ago (4 children)

Single party authoritarian capital system vs two party rigged democratic capital system.

[–] juchebot88@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 2 years ago

"Our system doesn't provide for its people very well, but at least it's more moral" is not the strong argument you think it is.

[–] CARCOSA@hexbear.net 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Homeownership

CW: Self-harm rates

Murder Rates

[–] WaterBowlSlime@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It's funny how much the scale for the Y axis on the homeownership chart has to change for the differences in China to be noticable

[–] polskilumalo@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 2 years ago

Yeah, literally nothing changed but the scale makes you think otherwise. I hate how liberals do this to push a fake narrative. Bending the truth to their whims as much as they can, the snakes.

[–] Kirbywithwhip1987@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)
[–] sinovictorchan@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 2 years ago

The electoral system in USSR and China worked differently to suit their circumstances and culture. The US depends solely on rigged electoralism where they have two political parties that differs little other than their slogan and branding. USSR allow people to elect members of a political party instead of the election of a political party and they use a high indirect electoral system where people elect leader in the next hierarchy which works at that time due to the mass illiteracy, lack of experience of prior electoral system, political instability, and lack of resource for Western European diapora-styled electoralism. The USSR also use the rule of law and check of power by independent government departments to prevent mass corruption although the Western European diaspora say that any mass protest against Western European authoritarianism must be from one evil authoritarian mastermind that can overcome the fantasy logic of Liberalism to make a fully functioning prosperitive democratic system without the need for free riding unlike Western European diaspora countries.