All: I know this article intersects with touchy topics, but the personal experience and observations of the author make it interesting and different. Please respond on that level—the interesting and specific—rather than just to generics. Generic discussion is repetitive and usually turns vituperative, as people just crash into each other's pre-hardened positions like angry bumper cars.
All the authors observations ring true, and they all stem from one simple fact: China was a very poor country just forty years ago, and even today is only a middle income country.
The uncomfortable truth is a lot of the things westerners take for granted are, in fact, luxuries. Arts and creativity is a luxury. Freedom to pursue passion is a luxury. Compassion is a luxury. Self-esteem is a luxury. If you barely have enough food to feed your family, as a significant number of Chinese people were in the 60s and 70s, you cannot afford any of these.
China has grown richer at a remarkable rate, but the mentality shift can take generations.
> No. These are virtues, not luxuries. You don't need a high income to be compassionate or have self-esteem.
It's not about you, it's about others around you. If they do not have a "high income" (or, in other words, materially comfortable life), you cannot expect them to be comfortable enough to be compassionate or have self-esteem. And then, if they don't, but you do, it's an easy recipe for your compassion to be exploited and your self-esteem to be perceived as danger. It's a self-leveling system.
It's not an individual matter, but a social one. Always has been. And it's not specific to China - I see it in Poland, a relatively "we've been damn poor forty years ago" country as well.
I think this also leads to the most important observation of our time: progress is now much more difficult to measure and the control over the narrative is fierce.
This entire century of media has been an endless splitting of hairs and casting of doubts.
> The uncomfortable truth is a lot of the things westerners take for granted are, in fact, luxuries.
This is supposed to be uncomfortable? Why? Most inter-national discussions here are about how their country is better because they have bigger houses, more toys, and how they can remain oblivious to how the rest of the world works because of how good their “soft” or “hard” power is at managing the rest of the world.
I don't have any personal experience with this, but what's interesting to me is how similar a lot of this sounds to America. I'm not saying it IS the same as America, just that if there is a substantive difference I didn't get a sense of it
- Nationalism stemming from insecurity (I tend to notice the poorest, most desperate tend to be the proudest)
- "social death" - Is that not so different that being canceled or fear of being canceled? To me it seems very apparent that people who get ostracized on the national stage take a huge personal toll and have their personality changed for years.
- Also for the Dark World example he uses a Peter Thiel quote. I think optimism/trust/community is lower here now that a few decades ago. But I do agree that in tech jobs I've anecdotally seen more cutthroat approaches (e.g. refusing to share knowledge with a coworker) from other cultures more often.
I think this article makes the same silly mistake most people do when analyzing other cultures: Overemphasis on national identity. I'm specifically speaking to point four here: I've got family in china, have visited for periods of months at a time, and don't see most people I've interacted with thinking about national identity or priorities mostly at all. Like people anywhere, they're wrapped up in their social lives, careers, and hobbies moreso than any kind of proving china or chinese people are this or that. The author calls out their own bias created by interacting with immigrants and internet culture, which I think will tend to form this lens
This is likely because as the author admits, their interaction with everyday Chinese is mainly through the Internet and cultural products, which has a significant bias.
Chinese government actively shapes the online discourse, so the messaging is already filtered. To make it worse, it meant people found out that the easiest way to silence your opponent is to brand them as anti-China, so you see a lot of pro-China virtue signaling. Finally, people also realized patriotism is lucrative.
An interesting recent phenomena is that regular Chinese people have figured out how to use AI to speak for them to make english language youtube videos. They are quite fascinating to watch, because you don't normally get such an unfiltered perspective. I think people feel safe posting these because nobody knows them in the west, whereas family, friends and govt. see Chinese social media. And of course youtube is banned in China.. Some of them make a few hundred bucks from Alphabet, this is a big deal.
Here are a few (check out the comments- working class people from around the world make contact):
What I wonder based on this piece is how much the lived experience for someone in China differs from the view from outside — and the author admits that his is a "fairly narrow window," though certainly wider than mine. But when I visited China, I saw both the part that reflected popular ideas of what it's like there (based on what actually propagates to other countries) but also a part that felt like everyone was playing along with these aspects so as not to stick out.
Of course that may just be me projecting my own perspective onto them, but I did get the feeling that there is a performative aspect to the culture described in this article, and that whatever lies underneath it is likely, as in so many places, not really accessible to anyone who was not born and raised in a place.
I'd like to argue that different generations of Chinese people might have drastically different characteristics, because of how quickly life changes here.
I'm a native Chinese person born around the new millennium, and some of the observations in this article seem to apply only to specific generations.
"Dark World thinking as described in Truth or Dare": I personally don't feel this at all. But this mentality does apply to many people over 70.Some of the elderly people I met are mean and selfish by today's standards, but considering they might have literally survived a starvation, this shouldn't be that surprising.
"Primacy of social reality, and of shame and “face.”: I don't know about this. Maybe because I grew up in this environment, I am used to the social norm and don't find it uncomfortable at all. Yet I haven't lived abroad for a long time, so I don't know how different it is somewhere else.
"Chinese social media is like American junk food.": Basically true. Social platforms can be atrocious, but there are rational and comfortable circles. They tend to stay low though, since popularity usually destroys them. But I'd argue that this is the same anywhere on the internet.
I wonder what would be a country which is good for autists (in the sense of this article). Probably (parts of) the US, but I'm wondering whether there is some non-trivial answer.
> Most characters are Chinese, but even those who are not continue to mostly think and act in this similarly alien style.
No, most good characters in those books are chinese. I liked technical aspects of the book a lot, but on societal level there was quite a bit xenophobia up to including racism against white people.
Still interesting, maybe something akin to picking up some pulp novel from 1920s that had other races in stereotypical cartoon evil roles. Not something pleasant to read in 21st century for anybody with more modern values (where average typical Chinese stand on this I leave to them here, no idea).
Fair enough, but are we talking credit score or shaming by other users/citizen? Shaming and bullying people who are perceived as having done something wrong on-line is not unheard of in ‘the west’. I suppose it concerns famous people far more than your ordinary social circles, though.
eugh, I cannot state how much I hate broad, categorical psychological traits gettinng assigned to entire countries of people. that might come from the fact that people would ask me 'hey does your family do this' based on some Amy Tan movie they watched and me having to be 'yeah my family does not do that whatsoever, that's not all Chinese people'
I think part of this bias is due to not having any actual domestic, critical understanding of the home country culture and so you end up not applying the same analytical tools you'd use to analyze, for eg, why Youtube Shorts/IG Reels/etc took off here
some glaring examples from the essay:
> Chinese consumers already had a high tolerance for slop and AI content fit naturally into this ecosystem without ever triggering an uncanny-valley reflex.
yeah, this isn't due to some inherent acceptance of unreality, the massive volume of low-budget vertical 微短剧 (weiduanju) on Douyin and Kuaishou is driven by economic factors like digital ad-arbitrage [0]. most of these studios spend the vast majority of their budget on advertising with an incredibly small amount reserved for actual production and so you get AI filtered slop because it's cheaper than paying actors or make up artists or the whole supporting crew
plus, the CAC cracks down a lot more on cruddy micro-dramas than US regulators do on low-quality TikTok/YShorts/IG Reels content (ie not at all, ever)
> This basic message is inculcated throughout Chinese upbringing: push through and ignore physical discomfort, but attend to and be subject to social censure. It's okay to be buffeted by the elements, but if your grades are bad, you'll be too ashamed to face your parents.
this is again blaming individual psychological conditioning and not systemic forces. like in the US, managing reputation has to do with high-stakes institutional checkpoints, not an irrational preference for perception over physical reality. when the 高考 (gaokao) and your 户口 (hukou)[1] literally dictate whether or not you have access to housing, schools, and healthcare, you would of course focus your attention on grades and social standing. if there were other gatekeepers, the 'culture' would shift to focus there too
> Dark World thinking sees all virtue and kindness as pretense. Among many such tropes, a common derogatory trope is of women who act nice and innocent 白莲花 (white lotus) while being deceitful and manipulative on the inside. Chinese media creates trapped priors that people acting kind, altruistic, and pure are more likely to be evil."
this happened because they dismantled the 铁饭碗 (tiefanwan) [2]. the state basically dismantled the kind of sub-utopian socialist give-everything social programming (that certain propagandized Western leftists seem to believe are still in place) and let the market fully take over. when your universal safety net is gone, extending trust or finances to others who are economically incentivized to compete with you becomes a sub-optimal play. it's why 内卷 (neijuan or involution) is a widely discoursed about issue in Chinese society
also, it's very funny to see 白莲花 (white lotus) used... seriously here? in Chinese social media, that's a satirical term and positions the bailianhua as sanctimonious. it's not aspirational, it's like calling someone a Karen here
It's clear that you know a ton about this, and your comment includes much interesting and specific information—that's great! But can you please edit out the swipes and putdowns? Everyone's perspective is limited, after all.
I keep reading this article and I keep getting more and more frustrated by it every minute lol
>Even among strains of nationalism, Chinese nationalism seems to be particularly chip-on-your-shoulder. My impression is that this kind of insecurity is less in your face, but still present, in younger Chinese today. It is concerning how much Chinese AI models catching up in the AI race is entangled with this national insecurity.
investment in domestic computing and foundation models is guided by industrial policy (科技自立自强) [0]. this isn't some kind of ego issue shared across 1+ billion people, it's literally policy set up by central planninng
> "My current hypothesis is that the locally optimal message to China is in the vein of “give us your autists who feel alienated by the monoculture,” but others may prefer a more conciliatory approach that directly appeals to the dominant culture."
the lived reality of Chinese neurodivergence is not some abstract thing that's fun to joke about. it's, instead, families carrying a child through an educational system that offers minimal specialized scaffolding, navigating intense social stigma, and absorbing the terror of what happens to a dependent adult when their aging parents die. instead of seeing this population as a recruitment pool of "hyper-logical code monkeys" waiting to be drafted into an American AI safety crusade, maybe think of them as people. otherwise you're no different from the people who are just calling them slurs
also, to describe Chinese culture as 'monocultural' is just wrong. a migrant worker on a factory floor does not share the same culture as a tech worker at Baidu - and neither of them share the same culture as a factory owner. there's also like a billion subcultural niches in China - lie flat 躺平 and letting it rot 摆烂 just to name two more popular ones. it's not as if the people there are stupid to knowing their culture is exploitative - the critique of 996 is widespread
What happened to the first comment that was posted here? I'm assuming it was removed because it was just a list of what I am assuming are a bunch of CCP censored terms and it didn't engage directly with the content; however, it caught my attention because I have never noticed previously a comment removed without a placeholder. Then again I suppose this why I don't see a bunch of removed spam posts.
If you're asking about https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49937309, users flagged it. When a post gets a lot of flags relative to upvotes, HN's software kills the post (that's what "[dead]" means). Moderators sometimes also kill posts, but mostly they're killed by software.
Dead posts are removed from public view, but you can still see them by turning the 'showdead' setting on in your profile. This is in the FAQ: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html.
You'll also see posts that don't deserve to be [dead] and for that we have something called vouching - also in the FAQ at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html ("What does [dead] mean?")
The whole filter thing seems to be an extension of the single most striking feature of Chinese culture to a western perspective, which is the overwhelming sameness of absolutely everything. I truly cannot tell the difference between any of their pop culture because it all objectively looks identical. Shows, art, music, games, fashion, all look like they were stamped out of a factory and approved by committee. How is it possible that a billion people have all collectively converged on one single highly specific art style with almost no perceptible variance?
This is a common experience with any unfamiliar genre: it all looks or sounds the same at first, because the point of a genre is to express variation within a specific, familiar structure. As a newcomer, the structure dominates your perception, until you've exposed yourself to enough instances that you can filter out the common features and notice the details, which are where the actual creativity lies.
I have no idea about Chinese pop culture, but it could be that for someone not familiar with it everything may be too unfamiliar for the differences to become appreciable.
For example I don't listen much electronic dance music (house, techno, trance etc), and whenever I end up in a club it sounds to me that its always the same loud thumping song playing. Those who go frequently do seem to find a lot of variation though.
The Chinese equivalent of a dive with a good band is not ultra-commercialized international content available through western syndicates. If you want to get an idea of how hard they'd be to discover, try listing the American cultural rebels you know of (that are actually rebelling from something, not commercializing a 40 year old punk style).
Why does everyone equate music with ultra commercialized crap? Why ignore the underground and alternative scenes? There is a fuck ton of alternative underground music and art. It's not hard to find.
That's kind of the point though. There are a ton of alternative underground music and art, but it's not popular and it's even less popular outside of the various countries from which it originates.
The same is true of Chinese culture. China has an unbelievably diverse range of music, film, theater, etc... but what gets exported to a Western audience is not going to be things like Beijing's underground punk and experimental noise scenes, Chinese shoegaze, Sichuan and Yunnan folk music, Mongolian throat-singing fused with metal, dozens of completely different regional opera traditions, underground queer cinema, or Sichuanese rap.
Westerners will mostly get the small slice of Chinese culture that is easiest to export, translate, market, and fit into familiar expectations about what "Chinese culture" is supposed to look like.
This reminds me of South Korea. IDK if its still a thing but apparently there was an official puffer jacket tier list and 90% of high school students wore 1 of about 8 different jackets.
I think you may want to interrogate why you feel this way a little more before you assign it to a "feature of Chinese culture." Frankly your comment comes across as aggressively ignorant.
While true, that probably says more about what you’re looking for at home. I could be wrong, maybe you’re really into the late pop fads, mass market tv events and all of that. To an extent this comes down to comparing an entertainment landscape you know how to navigate to find the stuff aimed at you, with a foreign one.
Western reality tv, procedurals, game shows, soap operas and so on are incredibly samey after all. BUT the other factor is that creative endeavors in China take place under a censorship regime. Some topics are safer than others, so the mainstream tends to be quite formulaic and focused on fantasy, sci-fi, or pseudo historical shows.
Can you please not break the site guidelines like this, regardless of how wrong someone is or you feel they are? I realize it's frustrating—most of all when someone is lazily expressing a one-sided majority view (<-- not talking about the GP here, just in general), but it's necessary to wait until that surge of frustration subsides before posting, if we're to have the kind of discussion we're trying for (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html).
If you know more than someone else does, that's great—but in that case please share some of what you know, so we can all learn, and please do it without resorting to putdowns or swipes.
I know that takes more time and energy, but in this way you make an enduring positive contribution instead of an ephemeral destructive one. Curious conversation is fragile; it can't withstand many kicks and blows.
What exactly is a productive response to blatant racism other than calling it out? What constructive discussion does a variant of "all Asian people look the same" engender?
I would argue that shunning racism is productive for the commons. Instead it is the person calling it out who is being shunned. Wonderful.
The claim being made is so obviously, categorically incorrect that it falls apart within a single second of examination. For example: Hoyoverse, a Chinese company, produced Genshin Impact and Nodusfall, two games with completely different art styles. And yet, in typing this, I have already spent an order of magnitude more effort[1] than somebody professing their racist worldview is dignified to receive. I think the actual productive response is shutting that down. I mean, really. A billion people who can only produce one artstyle like a factory? The claim is so patently, obviously, intentionally racist and incapable of holding up to reality it's absurd.
I could spend an hour scrolling back through my Twitter likes and collecting links to a huge array of Chinese artists with divergent artstyles, but in doing so I would be doing nothing more than wasting my own time, because someone with such a flagrant disregard of reality to come to that conclusion in the first place isn't going to change their view based on being shown reality.
Whatever. I unfortunately have a compulsion to check this site, but I'll do my best to refrain from posting in the future, since your vision of the site is one where posting racist comments is welcome and calling them out is unwelcome.
> Hoyoverse, a Chinese company, produced Genshin Impact and Nodusfall, two games with completely different art styles.
And with that single sentence, you have provided a great counter-example. Had you included it in your first comment, you would have saved yourself yet another order of magnitude’s worth of words to type out and contributed to the culture here far more, no?
For what it’s worth, the original comment did not read as blatantly racist to me, though I see how one could read it that way.
Kind of adjacent: Can somebody explain why the LW/EA/rationalist types all seem to be so ardently against China?
They're otherwise generally in support of doing the greatest good for the greatest number, at least ostensibly, so I wonder what it is about China -- which has lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty domestically and is looking to export wealth abroad (most notably in the form of accessible "luxury" goods such as electric cars) -- that seems to trigger them so much.
China's political economy is also far more "rationalist" than anything you'll find anywhere else.
And yet I swear, and I'm not exaggerating about this in the slightest, that the average EA/LW poster hates China far more than the average /pol/ poster -- and is perfectly comfortable making sweeping generalizations where 1.4B Chinese are concerned. Guys like Scott Alexander rarely (if ever) have a good word for them; Zvi Moshowitz discounts and belittles every technological advance they make, despite otherwise being very fair; and you see what LW itself is like...
They call themselves rationalists but they don't apply their own theories, they think permanent authoritarianism is as bad as human extinction. It's a predictable offshoot from their own west coast US ideological origins.
It is kinda weird when I think about. Surely Chinese style technocratic leadership and political system would be most efficient in reaching goals of those people. It probably should be the system to emulate. Instead of utter inefficient messes seen in other parts of the world.
Maybe they just are lot less rational and altruistic than they claim to be. With significant biases...
It's fine, of course, to disagree; we just want conversation to stay in the key of curiosity: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
All the authors observations ring true, and they all stem from one simple fact: China was a very poor country just forty years ago, and even today is only a middle income country.
The uncomfortable truth is a lot of the things westerners take for granted are, in fact, luxuries. Arts and creativity is a luxury. Freedom to pursue passion is a luxury. Compassion is a luxury. Self-esteem is a luxury. If you barely have enough food to feed your family, as a significant number of Chinese people were in the 60s and 70s, you cannot afford any of these.
China has grown richer at a remarkable rate, but the mentality shift can take generations.
Societies thrive when humans cut each other a little slack. They die when people are constantly looking for ways to take advantage of others.
Sure.
> Compassion is a luxury. Self-esteem is a luxury.
No. These are virtues, not luxuries. You don't need a high income to be compassionate or have self-esteem.
It's not about you, it's about others around you. If they do not have a "high income" (or, in other words, materially comfortable life), you cannot expect them to be comfortable enough to be compassionate or have self-esteem. And then, if they don't, but you do, it's an easy recipe for your compassion to be exploited and your self-esteem to be perceived as danger. It's a self-leveling system.
It's not an individual matter, but a social one. Always has been. And it's not specific to China - I see it in Poland, a relatively "we've been damn poor forty years ago" country as well.
This entire century of media has been an endless splitting of hairs and casting of doubts.
This is supposed to be uncomfortable? Why? Most inter-national discussions here are about how their country is better because they have bigger houses, more toys, and how they can remain oblivious to how the rest of the world works because of how good their “soft” or “hard” power is at managing the rest of the world.
- Nationalism stemming from insecurity (I tend to notice the poorest, most desperate tend to be the proudest)
- "social death" - Is that not so different that being canceled or fear of being canceled? To me it seems very apparent that people who get ostracized on the national stage take a huge personal toll and have their personality changed for years.
- Also for the Dark World example he uses a Peter Thiel quote. I think optimism/trust/community is lower here now that a few decades ago. But I do agree that in tech jobs I've anecdotally seen more cutthroat approaches (e.g. refusing to share knowledge with a coworker) from other cultures more often.
In everyday life the description in the article is nothing like what I imagine America to be.
Chinese government actively shapes the online discourse, so the messaging is already filtered. To make it worse, it meant people found out that the easiest way to silence your opponent is to brand them as anti-China, so you see a lot of pro-China virtue signaling. Finally, people also realized patriotism is lucrative.
Here are a few (check out the comments- working class people from around the world make contact):
https://www.youtube.com/@kangkanginchina7
https://www.youtube.com/@Chineseruralareas
Anyway, I view this as one of the more positive uses for AI.
Of course that may just be me projecting my own perspective onto them, but I did get the feeling that there is a performative aspect to the culture described in this article, and that whatever lies underneath it is likely, as in so many places, not really accessible to anyone who was not born and raised in a place.
I'm a native Chinese person born around the new millennium, and some of the observations in this article seem to apply only to specific generations.
"Dark World thinking as described in Truth or Dare": I personally don't feel this at all. But this mentality does apply to many people over 70.Some of the elderly people I met are mean and selfish by today's standards, but considering they might have literally survived a starvation, this shouldn't be that surprising.
"Primacy of social reality, and of shame and “face.”: I don't know about this. Maybe because I grew up in this environment, I am used to the social norm and don't find it uncomfortable at all. Yet I haven't lived abroad for a long time, so I don't know how different it is somewhere else.
"Chinese social media is like American junk food.": Basically true. Social platforms can be atrocious, but there are rational and comfortable circles. They tend to stay low though, since popularity usually destroys them. But I'd argue that this is the same anywhere on the internet.
No, most good characters in those books are chinese. I liked technical aspects of the book a lot, but on societal level there was quite a bit xenophobia up to including racism against white people.
Still interesting, maybe something akin to picking up some pulp novel from 1920s that had other races in stereotypical cartoon evil roles. Not something pleasant to read in 21st century for anybody with more modern values (where average typical Chinese stand on this I leave to them here, no idea).
This is largely correct across cultures.
“Trust is a luxury I can’t afford.” - Cormega
Your best friends will screw you over for fun.
Your friendly boss will lie to your face.
Family members have no issue with ripping each other off once money is on the line.
How many probate attorneys eat well because siblings need to sue each other ?
I don’t even think it’s a matter of capitalism or economics.
Something is off about humanity at a fundamental level.
And these positive actions happen 100x more often, at least.
But indeed, nobody is perfect
I think part of this bias is due to not having any actual domestic, critical understanding of the home country culture and so you end up not applying the same analytical tools you'd use to analyze, for eg, why Youtube Shorts/IG Reels/etc took off here
some glaring examples from the essay:
> Chinese consumers already had a high tolerance for slop and AI content fit naturally into this ecosystem without ever triggering an uncanny-valley reflex.
yeah, this isn't due to some inherent acceptance of unreality, the massive volume of low-budget vertical 微短剧 (weiduanju) on Douyin and Kuaishou is driven by economic factors like digital ad-arbitrage [0]. most of these studios spend the vast majority of their budget on advertising with an incredibly small amount reserved for actual production and so you get AI filtered slop because it's cheaper than paying actors or make up artists or the whole supporting crew
plus, the CAC cracks down a lot more on cruddy micro-dramas than US regulators do on low-quality TikTok/YShorts/IG Reels content (ie not at all, ever)
> This basic message is inculcated throughout Chinese upbringing: push through and ignore physical discomfort, but attend to and be subject to social censure. It's okay to be buffeted by the elements, but if your grades are bad, you'll be too ashamed to face your parents.
this is again blaming individual psychological conditioning and not systemic forces. like in the US, managing reputation has to do with high-stakes institutional checkpoints, not an irrational preference for perception over physical reality. when the 高考 (gaokao) and your 户口 (hukou)[1] literally dictate whether or not you have access to housing, schools, and healthcare, you would of course focus your attention on grades and social standing. if there were other gatekeepers, the 'culture' would shift to focus there too
> Dark World thinking sees all virtue and kindness as pretense. Among many such tropes, a common derogatory trope is of women who act nice and innocent 白莲花 (white lotus) while being deceitful and manipulative on the inside. Chinese media creates trapped priors that people acting kind, altruistic, and pure are more likely to be evil."
this happened because they dismantled the 铁饭碗 (tiefanwan) [2]. the state basically dismantled the kind of sub-utopian socialist give-everything social programming (that certain propagandized Western leftists seem to believe are still in place) and let the market fully take over. when your universal safety net is gone, extending trust or finances to others who are economically incentivized to compete with you becomes a sub-optimal play. it's why 内卷 (neijuan or involution) is a widely discoursed about issue in Chinese society
also, it's very funny to see 白莲花 (white lotus) used... seriously here? in Chinese social media, that's a satirical term and positions the bailianhua as sanctimonious. it's not aspirational, it's like calling someone a Karen here
[0] https://36kr.com/p/3547915143655305
[1] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324106192_China%27s...
[2] https://www.routledge.com/The-Individualization-of-Chinese-S...
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
>Even among strains of nationalism, Chinese nationalism seems to be particularly chip-on-your-shoulder. My impression is that this kind of insecurity is less in your face, but still present, in younger Chinese today. It is concerning how much Chinese AI models catching up in the AI race is entangled with this national insecurity.
investment in domestic computing and foundation models is guided by industrial policy (科技自立自强) [0]. this isn't some kind of ego issue shared across 1+ billion people, it's literally policy set up by central planninng
> "My current hypothesis is that the locally optimal message to China is in the vein of “give us your autists who feel alienated by the monoculture,” but others may prefer a more conciliatory approach that directly appeals to the dominant culture."
the lived reality of Chinese neurodivergence is not some abstract thing that's fun to joke about. it's, instead, families carrying a child through an educational system that offers minimal specialized scaffolding, navigating intense social stigma, and absorbing the terror of what happens to a dependent adult when their aging parents die. instead of seeing this population as a recruitment pool of "hyper-logical code monkeys" waiting to be drafted into an American AI safety crusade, maybe think of them as people. otherwise you're no different from the people who are just calling them slurs
also, to describe Chinese culture as 'monocultural' is just wrong. a migrant worker on a factory floor does not share the same culture as a tech worker at Baidu - and neither of them share the same culture as a factory owner. there's also like a billion subcultural niches in China - lie flat 躺平 and letting it rot 摆烂 just to name two more popular ones. it's not as if the people there are stupid to knowing their culture is exploitative - the critique of 996 is widespread
[0] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S209580992...
Dead posts are removed from public view, but you can still see them by turning the 'showdead' setting on in your profile. This is in the FAQ: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html.
If you turn 'showdead' on, please don't forget that you did! As your last sentence implies, turning it on means signing up to see a ton of dreck. (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...).
You'll also see posts that don't deserve to be [dead] and for that we have something called vouching - also in the FAQ at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html ("What does [dead] mean?")
For example I don't listen much electronic dance music (house, techno, trance etc), and whenever I end up in a club it sounds to me that its always the same loud thumping song playing. Those who go frequently do seem to find a lot of variation though.
The same is true of Chinese culture. China has an unbelievably diverse range of music, film, theater, etc... but what gets exported to a Western audience is not going to be things like Beijing's underground punk and experimental noise scenes, Chinese shoegaze, Sichuan and Yunnan folk music, Mongolian throat-singing fused with metal, dozens of completely different regional opera traditions, underground queer cinema, or Sichuanese rap.
Westerners will mostly get the small slice of Chinese culture that is easiest to export, translate, market, and fit into familiar expectations about what "Chinese culture" is supposed to look like.
Social games that drive conformity.
Western reality tv, procedurals, game shows, soap operas and so on are incredibly samey after all. BUT the other factor is that creative endeavors in China take place under a censorship regime. Some topics are safer than others, so the mainstream tends to be quite formulaic and focused on fantasy, sci-fi, or pseudo historical shows.
If you know more than someone else does, that's great—but in that case please share some of what you know, so we can all learn, and please do it without resorting to putdowns or swipes.
I know that takes more time and energy, but in this way you make an enduring positive contribution instead of an ephemeral destructive one. Curious conversation is fragile; it can't withstand many kicks and blows.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
The issue is the kind of community we're trying to have here. In deciding what counts as a good contribution, that has to be the high order bit.
At a minimum, one thing that requires is not punishing people for being wrong. We're all wrong, after all.
The claim being made is so obviously, categorically incorrect that it falls apart within a single second of examination. For example: Hoyoverse, a Chinese company, produced Genshin Impact and Nodusfall, two games with completely different art styles. And yet, in typing this, I have already spent an order of magnitude more effort[1] than somebody professing their racist worldview is dignified to receive. I think the actual productive response is shutting that down. I mean, really. A billion people who can only produce one artstyle like a factory? The claim is so patently, obviously, intentionally racist and incapable of holding up to reality it's absurd.
I could spend an hour scrolling back through my Twitter likes and collecting links to a huge array of Chinese artists with divergent artstyles, but in doing so I would be doing nothing more than wasting my own time, because someone with such a flagrant disregard of reality to come to that conclusion in the first place isn't going to change their view based on being shown reality.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law
Whatever. I unfortunately have a compulsion to check this site, but I'll do my best to refrain from posting in the future, since your vision of the site is one where posting racist comments is welcome and calling them out is unwelcome.
And with that single sentence, you have provided a great counter-example. Had you included it in your first comment, you would have saved yourself yet another order of magnitude’s worth of words to type out and contributed to the culture here far more, no?
For what it’s worth, the original comment did not read as blatantly racist to me, though I see how one could read it that way.
Europeans feel exactly like this as well. And as an American who's lived in Europe for decades, I couldn't agree more.
You may not owe cartels better, but you owe this community better if you're participating in it.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
They're otherwise generally in support of doing the greatest good for the greatest number, at least ostensibly, so I wonder what it is about China -- which has lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty domestically and is looking to export wealth abroad (most notably in the form of accessible "luxury" goods such as electric cars) -- that seems to trigger them so much.
China's political economy is also far more "rationalist" than anything you'll find anywhere else.
And yet I swear, and I'm not exaggerating about this in the slightest, that the average EA/LW poster hates China far more than the average /pol/ poster -- and is perfectly comfortable making sweeping generalizations where 1.4B Chinese are concerned. Guys like Scott Alexander rarely (if ever) have a good word for them; Zvi Moshowitz discounts and belittles every technological advance they make, despite otherwise being very fair; and you see what LW itself is like...
Maybe they just are lot less rational and altruistic than they claim to be. With significant biases...