> You analysis is valid, but inconclusive.
Yup, it's a bit quick, I'll give you that. The numbers in 2025 were higher than in 2024, and in 2023, which could indicate that "it's not very effective" in actually reducing corruption.
I would guess that corruption is probably tolerated as long as it's not too visible, nor undermine people responsible for holding you accountable.
But it's really difficult to understand what's happening in China, because of the difficulty to get factual data.
> My comment was purely about centralized systems of government and how THAT effects competency
I would agree then than centralized government are likely to be more efficient. We've had kingdoms and empires all around the world for millennia, probably not by chance. In my opinion, they can be quite beneficial, as long as there's a substantial amount of morality driving the leading forces. For otherwise, they're efficient in the opposite direction.
China's leader banned Winnie the Pooh from the Chinese Internet because someone said they look alike. That's − dare I say − quite a red flag on many levels.
> I won't in actuality participate in activities that will lead to these types of consequences so restricting me of these freedoms is something I practically don't care about.
Well, it's fair enough, but it is − no offense − a rather self-centered view. It might not affect you today, directly. But it may affect you later, or affect close friends, your children, etc. Genuinely upholding morality within society has a bunch of benefits for everyone.
> But what do you think of scientology? Cults
Agreed.
> Basically the religions that China cracks down on are religions it considers to be similar to scientology.
People in genuine cults are suffering and being abused. Why on Earth would it be justifiable to impose upon them something far worth? If one decides to take down some cults, one may suppose that it's to actually help their members, not to beat the hell out of them; it doesn't make much sense.
There are many, way healthier and efficient alternatives than vicious crackdowns, especially if your intent is to protect the people.
> Ultimately these things are bullshit
I don't know; the most beautiful architecture, all forms of arts, etc. all were rooted in religions. All great men in the past were quite spiritual.
Also, you know, there are things like [0] which really raises eyebrows.
> I'm not religious so, again practically speaking it doesn't affect me. I think most HNers are also atheist or agnostic.
Perhaps it doesn't affect you directly again. But indirectly, or in the long run it might.
Religions are often caricaturally understood nowadays, which I believe is a cause for the increase of their rejection. Don't get me wrong, the caricatures are there for good reasons. But the caricatured things can't be reduced to their caricature − if one attempts to understand them thoroughly and accurately.
A caricature is but an indication of some issues.
[0]: https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/cia-rdp96-00788r0019007...
Yup, it's a bit quick, I'll give you that. The numbers in 2025 were higher than in 2024, and in 2023, which could indicate that "it's not very effective" in actually reducing corruption.
I would guess that corruption is probably tolerated as long as it's not too visible, nor undermine people responsible for holding you accountable.
But it's really difficult to understand what's happening in China, because of the difficulty to get factual data.
> My comment was purely about centralized systems of government and how THAT effects competency
I would agree then than centralized government are likely to be more efficient. We've had kingdoms and empires all around the world for millennia, probably not by chance. In my opinion, they can be quite beneficial, as long as there's a substantial amount of morality driving the leading forces. For otherwise, they're efficient in the opposite direction.
China's leader banned Winnie the Pooh from the Chinese Internet because someone said they look alike. That's − dare I say − quite a red flag on many levels.
> I won't in actuality participate in activities that will lead to these types of consequences so restricting me of these freedoms is something I practically don't care about.
Well, it's fair enough, but it is − no offense − a rather self-centered view. It might not affect you today, directly. But it may affect you later, or affect close friends, your children, etc. Genuinely upholding morality within society has a bunch of benefits for everyone.
> But what do you think of scientology? Cults
Agreed.
> Basically the religions that China cracks down on are religions it considers to be similar to scientology.
People in genuine cults are suffering and being abused. Why on Earth would it be justifiable to impose upon them something far worth? If one decides to take down some cults, one may suppose that it's to actually help their members, not to beat the hell out of them; it doesn't make much sense.
There are many, way healthier and efficient alternatives than vicious crackdowns, especially if your intent is to protect the people.
> Ultimately these things are bullshit
I don't know; the most beautiful architecture, all forms of arts, etc. all were rooted in religions. All great men in the past were quite spiritual.
Also, you know, there are things like [0] which really raises eyebrows.
> I'm not religious so, again practically speaking it doesn't affect me. I think most HNers are also atheist or agnostic.
Perhaps it doesn't affect you directly again. But indirectly, or in the long run it might.
Religions are often caricaturally understood nowadays, which I believe is a cause for the increase of their rejection. Don't get me wrong, the caricatures are there for good reasons. But the caricatured things can't be reduced to their caricature − if one attempts to understand them thoroughly and accurately.
A caricature is but an indication of some issues.
[0]: https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/cia-rdp96-00788r0019007...