I’m not complaining, I’m giving you a relevant example of where these labels come from. It’s .ml and .world and I just don’t have any recent memory of this on .world. I’m sure there’s an example or two, just not recent.
I was silent because I wasn’t sure what people were saying. I don’t think people who disagree with what I say are necessarily misinformed, or less intelligent, or mean. So it comes down to how I am certain people (including you) know that what is written on paper and what flows in reality are not 1:1 matches. But they tell me something they wouldn’t accept if they were in my shoes.
Maybe that skepticism sounds ridiculous? But if structure is important and reality can be different and everyone knows this I think it’s odd to see officially meaningless official material in the room. Why can’t we throw it out?
Edit: imagine we’re pointing out that America is controlled by billionaires and someone links the official site saying “No, it’s still three branches and the will of the people.” You toss it immediately.
To speak of the Cuban system, it’s important to recognize that your skepticism almost certainly originates in perceptions formed by Western media. The structure itself is honest, it’s what they literally have. Whether or not this is sufficient, or working well, is a separate argument, but not the one you made. Your argument seemed to be that we can’t even trust the Cuban government to report on its own legal structures, which is as silly as saying going and looking up US legal code could be fake because we don’t trust the US government.
What reasoning did you have to distrust the Cuban government on its own structures? What source would have been better and thus more reliable for you? No source is free from bias, but things like legal structures tend to be fairly straightforward. Now, if I were linking an article where the Cuban government was talking about how its democratic structure is the best in the world, that leans heavily into opinionated territory and the bias shines through more clearly. However, again, we were talking about the literal structure, which is evidently democratic.
I think I’m mixing up your statement of a basic datum, the way Cuba is written to be, with the idea that it’s indicative of what you’ll likely find. Hence, I was skeptical of the utility of using the written system as meaningful to the statement that Cuba was democratic. Like if people are going to talk about that, I assume it’s not a technicality they are referring to, they are talking about real people living in a real country… so what good is the official parties word on how things are operating?
Also didn’t even realize you were the same person from the other thread, didn’t mean to show up here and bother you.
Quick correction: you didn’t bother me, I saw you commenting here about the meme I posted and wanted to set the record straight on my end. I am a different person from the one you initially replied to on this thread, so no worries.
As for Cuba, there is a large variance in what people who think Cuba isn’t democratic actually believe. There are many people who think they don’t even have elections, or are otherwise entirely unfamiliar with the Cuban electoral structure. For these people, looking at what the Cuban government says about its structure is massive, there’s really no reason not to trust their stated legal structure as reality just like there isn’t much reason to think US legal code isn’t reality either.
Once we are aligned on structure, then we can talk about how well the structure performs, or what hang-ups it may or may not have. Once everyone knows at least what the Cuban system is, then we can discuss how it works in practice. Without evidence of the system not working well, though, all that remains as a negative opinion on Cuba is through the lens of a media apparatus under the control of an Imperialist regime that seeks to recolonize Cuba.
Does that make sense? To use your own example, I would trust DPRK legal code to be enforced as it says it is, the effectiveness or net results are what can be debated on.
It might help people to see some local journalistic coverage of Cuban elections. Seeing the kinds of things Cubans say publicly about and during the elections can give people a more intuitive understanding of what Cuban democracy is actually like for the people participating in it, as well as start to reveal the outlines of the overton window there.
Journalism is my preferred medium for understanding the political landscape of other countries; for an example I like to watch friendlyjordies on youtube for a peek into Australian politics. I’m not sure if it would be very easy to find English translated Cuban sources though.
You were given the official outline on how Cuban Democracy works. What genuine reason do you have to not trust the structure reported? It isn’t in dispute or anything. Further, there were other non-cuban sources listed on that thread. When you were asked what source would count as valid for you, you were silent, but now you’re complaining in an entirely different thread, which is kinda funny.
It wasn’t your instance, it was your attitude.
I’m not complaining, I’m giving you a relevant example of where these labels come from. It’s .ml and .world and I just don’t have any recent memory of this on .world. I’m sure there’s an example or two, just not recent.
I was silent because I wasn’t sure what people were saying. I don’t think people who disagree with what I say are necessarily misinformed, or less intelligent, or mean. So it comes down to how I am certain people (including you) know that what is written on paper and what flows in reality are not 1:1 matches. But they tell me something they wouldn’t accept if they were in my shoes.
Maybe that skepticism sounds ridiculous? But if structure is important and reality can be different and everyone knows this I think it’s odd to see officially meaningless official material in the room. Why can’t we throw it out?
Edit: imagine we’re pointing out that America is controlled by billionaires and someone links the official site saying “No, it’s still three branches and the will of the people.” You toss it immediately.
To speak of the Cuban system, it’s important to recognize that your skepticism almost certainly originates in perceptions formed by Western media. The structure itself is honest, it’s what they literally have. Whether or not this is sufficient, or working well, is a separate argument, but not the one you made. Your argument seemed to be that we can’t even trust the Cuban government to report on its own legal structures, which is as silly as saying going and looking up US legal code could be fake because we don’t trust the US government.
What reasoning did you have to distrust the Cuban government on its own structures? What source would have been better and thus more reliable for you? No source is free from bias, but things like legal structures tend to be fairly straightforward. Now, if I were linking an article where the Cuban government was talking about how its democratic structure is the best in the world, that leans heavily into opinionated territory and the bias shines through more clearly. However, again, we were talking about the literal structure, which is evidently democratic.
I think I’m mixing up your statement of a basic datum, the way Cuba is written to be, with the idea that it’s indicative of what you’ll likely find. Hence, I was skeptical of the utility of using the written system as meaningful to the statement that Cuba was democratic. Like if people are going to talk about that, I assume it’s not a technicality they are referring to, they are talking about real people living in a real country… so what good is the official parties word on how things are operating?
Also didn’t even realize you were the same person from the other thread, didn’t mean to show up here and bother you.
Quick correction: you didn’t bother me, I saw you commenting here about the meme I posted and wanted to set the record straight on my end. I am a different person from the one you initially replied to on this thread, so no worries.
As for Cuba, there is a large variance in what people who think Cuba isn’t democratic actually believe. There are many people who think they don’t even have elections, or are otherwise entirely unfamiliar with the Cuban electoral structure. For these people, looking at what the Cuban government says about its structure is massive, there’s really no reason not to trust their stated legal structure as reality just like there isn’t much reason to think US legal code isn’t reality either.
Once we are aligned on structure, then we can talk about how well the structure performs, or what hang-ups it may or may not have. Once everyone knows at least what the Cuban system is, then we can discuss how it works in practice. Without evidence of the system not working well, though, all that remains as a negative opinion on Cuba is through the lens of a media apparatus under the control of an Imperialist regime that seeks to recolonize Cuba.
Does that make sense? To use your own example, I would trust DPRK legal code to be enforced as it says it is, the effectiveness or net results are what can be debated on.
It might help people to see some local journalistic coverage of Cuban elections. Seeing the kinds of things Cubans say publicly about and during the elections can give people a more intuitive understanding of what Cuban democracy is actually like for the people participating in it, as well as start to reveal the outlines of the overton window there.
Journalism is my preferred medium for understanding the political landscape of other countries; for an example I like to watch friendlyjordies on youtube for a peek into Australian politics. I’m not sure if it would be very easy to find English translated Cuban sources though.
You’re on the money with most Cuban sources being in Spanish, it’s not as common to find English sources.