Eh, a sample size of 3000 is actually pretty good. The standard deviation of the samples is 55 times less than that of the population, which makes it astronomically unlikely that the survey's results significantly misrepresent chinese views on the topic (ignoring sampling bias, which unfortunately can be a real issue).
Just looking at the average bilibili comments section where the Paris Olympics ceremony was mentioned
I imagine this is partially because chinese people are less familiar with western cultural norms and history, not necessarily that they oppose lgbtq rights, but I am not sure what the comments actually said so this is just speculation in my part.
The survey disproportionately sampled from urban populations over rural. It's not representative of the whole Chinese population.
It's a study by a US university about China, cited in an article about China by the Guardian. I knew I was going to find something like that before even opening the link. One would hope that after Xinjiang, Hong Kong and Taiwan, the Guardian would no longer have any credibility re China in this community.
China is 1.8 billion people. It's moving slowly on progressive issues, but it's moving forward. What it's not doing is following the West's example, where it rushes forward on progressive issues at the behest of half the population and then rolls back again next election cycle, letting capitalists commodify progressive virtue, letting the political classes use it as a wedge to divide and rule, and causing the slower half of the population to drag the country into fascism every now and then.
There is a certain irony about them not having gone to Xinjiang for more "rural answers". I wonder why. (wondering if they're banned now for their bullshit lmao)
Eh if that's reflective of China's actual proportions idk if I would call that biased. If 33% of China's population resides in an area then I would expect 33% of people surveyed to be from that area. Anything else imo would be biased in the other direction unless the rural responses somehow had less weight in the final conclusion to compensate. That (the electoral college, that is, which does exactly that - give the rural minority disproportionate voting power) is how we got to the situation you're describing in the USA.
Eh, a sample size of 3000 is actually pretty good. The standard deviation of the samples is 55 times less than that of the population, which makes it astronomically unlikely that the survey's results significantly misrepresent chinese views on the topic (ignoring sampling bias, which unfortunately can be a real issue).
I imagine this is partially because chinese people are less familiar with western cultural norms and history, not necessarily that they oppose lgbtq rights, but I am not sure what the comments actually said so this is just speculation in my part.
The survey disproportionately sampled from urban populations over rural. It's not representative of the whole Chinese population.
It's a study by a US university about China, cited in an article about China by the Guardian. I knew I was going to find something like that before even opening the link. One would hope that after Xinjiang, Hong Kong and Taiwan, the Guardian would no longer have any credibility re China in this community.
China is 1.8 billion people. It's moving slowly on progressive issues, but it's moving forward. What it's not doing is following the West's example, where it rushes forward on progressive issues at the behest of half the population and then rolls back again next election cycle, letting capitalists commodify progressive virtue, letting the political classes use it as a wedge to divide and rule, and causing the slower half of the population to drag the country into fascism every now and then.
Damn, I had no idea that the sampling bias was that bad. I mean, this is a pathetic error.
There is a certain irony about them not having gone to Xinjiang for more "rural answers". I wonder why. (wondering if they're banned now for their bullshit lmao)
Eh if that's reflective of China's actual proportions idk if I would call that biased. If 33% of China's population resides in an area then I would expect 33% of people surveyed to be from that area. Anything else imo would be biased in the other direction unless the rural responses somehow had less weight in the final conclusion to compensate. That (the electoral college, that is, which does exactly that - give the rural minority disproportionate voting power) is how we got to the situation you're describing in the USA.