On social reality in China | Hacker News Reader

On social reality in China

lesswrong.com

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.

It's fine, of course, to disagree; we just want conversation to stay in the key of curiosity: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

"something (grimdark power-scaling quasi-isekai fantasy) that likely appeals to Chinese netizens"

There's a huge amount of that stuff appearing as Chinese AI-created dramas. Although there seem to be only about ten standard plots. ("Banished girl heiress returns from the countryside to rich family" is very popular. Some of the vertical dramas with that plot are so similar it suggests re-use of the same prompt. Incidentally, if you don't watch Chinese drama and want to, see "Princess Agents", the original. That's a pre-AI big budget project with good plotting and characters.)

The AI fear for China should be that people will have to leave their city job, and return home in shame to their village, and farm. AIs and robots do most of the city work. There are still rich, modern, cities. You're just outside them.

The drama version would start like this: An employee is called into their boss's office and told they are being replaced with an AI. They pack their belongings into a cardboard box (a cliche of Chinese drama) and walk out of the building. When they get home, a petty official visits them and tells them their hukou is being revoked for being unemployed. Then we seem them with a small suitcase getting on a green train, headed for oblivion in the countryside.

I am Chinese living in America.

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.

I would focus more on current realities when seeking explanations, because the mentality can shift a lot in a single generation.

I'm from Finland. My grandparents were of a generation that knew poverty and hunger and fought in wars. They raised their families when the country was still poor, and food security was always at the back of their minds. My parents grew up in a country that was rapidly getting wealthier. Their generation took food for granted, but owning things was important to them, as it was something they could not have in their youth. For my generation, the country has always been wealthy, and we have always been able to take basic necessities for granted. Our focus has been in choosing what we want to do with our lives, as the world is open and there are many options to choose from.

I would add that just having a 60-70 hour work week for many jobs means a different lifestyle, even if you're comfortable financially.

Friend of a friend got hukou in Wuhan recently and picked up a crappy job as a convenience store clerk. 10 hrs/day, 3 days off a month. But! She can comfortably live off it in a major city with a studio apt and even save a bit. Doesn't even need roommates.

I grew up in the third world. Agree with this comment.

Also my personal belief is that courtesy is a luxury born of abundance. I have observed how minor ‘scarcities’ in the advanced economies can surface behaviour that some would attribute to less developed places e.g. an unexpected slew of cancelled transit

I grew up in the USSR. The similarites are uncanny. Add fatalism and less elaborate linkage to imaginary history.

This is a helpful insight.

My counter argument though is how the elite class have a certain scarcity mentality and still holds on to these observations made in the articles.

In college, I dated a few Asian (Mainland) who all had similar mindset. Dating wasn’t about finding the right match but more about “upgrade your social face being accepted by foreigners”. It was shockingly weird at the beginning until the pattern was obvious. They were all wealthy (paying international tuition) I would think so the scarcity mindset you speak of seems like should have waned off at a local proximity (family or social circle).

That is the "mentality shift can take generations" part.

Those ladies may be part of the elite now. But remember their parents or grandparents went through the Great Chinese Famine where an estimated 15-60 million people died.

I would say that compassion is not a luxury; it's a necessity for human society to operate.

Societies thrive when humans cut each other a little slack. They die when people are constantly looking for ways to take advantage of others.

Severely competitive and hopeless environments will do a hell of a job on human compassion.

Read about the dehumanizing effects of concentration camps on individuals hiding food from their family or praying their father dies so they can get his food

Its arguable that our ability to build luxurious enough societies has allowed out compassion to flourish far beyond what is witnessed elsewhere in the state of nature

Having less competitive/ruthless (sub) societies i.e. environments where one co-operates is what allowed us to get luxury not the other way around.

> concentration camps

Concentration camps are an example of humans taking advantage of one another. Arguably, it's the ultimate example.

Which is why I think the whole premise of GP is kind of suspect. China has housed a highly-developed society - not just a civilization, but a contiguous, if evolving, social order - for longer than most of the rest of the world. Even what they consider backwoods and rural is basically urban by most historical standards.

These aren't the problems of a society rising out of a state of nature; as TFA states, "The narrative is that China experienced a “century of humiliation”". I think certain aspects of Chinese culture as we know it, writ-large, make more sense coming from people who weren't just recently struggling as a society, but who are well aware of how that condition compares to their historical one.

Say that all you want, make it a mantra if you like. But have you ever skipped a meal out of sheer poverty? Or might you be projecting ethics (ie aka Americanism)? Maybe we should actually cut them some slack.

I have. I know a lot of generous, compassionate poor people. I met loads of them in Honduras and Brazil and Belize. Compassion and generosity need not be a factor of economics.

> Arts and creativity is a luxury. Freedom to pursue passion is a luxury.

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.

I'm actually quite disturbed to read that so many people believe compassion has anything to do with material satisfaction. Compassion isn't some bourgeois luxury, it's fundamental to any sort of well-being, be it individual or societal.

If it really came down to the famine, I'd ask why isn't this mentality seen in Bangladesh, who also lost around 5% of it's population to famine in the 20th century? They're some of the kindest, most welcoming people I've been around in the face of a poverty that China no longer knows.

So I'm having a hard time believing that TFA isn't completely off on this one, as I'd expect a society that had 2000 years of contact with Buddhism to have absorbed at least a little of the Buddha's teachings on karuna. Especially one whose main school was that of Mahayana and it's ideal of the Bodhisattva.

> 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 flies in the face of my own experience travelling all over the world, where the poorest people would offer me extreme generosity and not accept anything in return.

Maybe it's bias because I'm an "exotic" white guy in many areas and not just a random down on their luck average guy from their own region.

I've also been offered generosity by rich people, as well, but, I will generalize, that mainly came after I demonstrated some proof that I didn't actually need their generosity

Have you ever been to truly starving places? Not taking about poor countries, literally starving places, like, Syria in WWI. Where if you don't steal from your neighbor, your kids will die of hunger. That's the kind of environment where compassion is a luxury. A lot of China was like that _even if for a short time_ in the last century. That leaves deep scars.

Not a lot of the world is like that today, you'd have to go pretty far out of anything considered tourist-friendly to see conditions similar to Mao-induced famine.

Yeah, but older rural people in China are often exactly like the post you're responding to, anyways.

Maybe it's country dependent. I have seen what you describe in countries where christianity is the dominant religion and most people in those countries something like 70 to 80 percent identify with it. And religion in those places is most prevalent among the poor, so much so there is a direct relationship between poverty and religion, the more religious, the poorer.

In my personal experience, religiosity correlates with the appearance of kindness but not the actual act of kindness.

100% spot on.

Everyone who downvoted you are the type to step into another pile of dog shit the moment they finish scraping their shoes. Regressing into spirituality doesn't fix this. High trust paired with opportunity does.

> This flies in the face of my own experience travelling all over the world, where the poorest people would offer me extreme generosity and not accept anything in return.

orrrr maybe poor people you've encountered are poor exactly because they are generous in competitive environment - and non-generous became rich and successful

One's compassion reservoir capacity is proportional to one's capacity to fulfill its own needs first. You fill your cup first before you pour into others.

It's amazing to me how ignorant this comment is. Someone is teaching you something about a culture you don't understand and you're chastising them (or condescending to an entire nation).

> No. These are virtues, not luxuries.

According to your particular ethics. Has it ever occurred to you that the ethics you have isn't universal but is simply an artifact of your culture?

you completely missed the point.

> These are virtues, not luxuries

I'm only speaking from my own experience here. When I've seen stressed out people who are expected to believe in "virtues", they just become more dishonest to hide their bad behavior.

The bell curve of human behavior stays the same no matter what time or place.

> 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.

That sort of international comparison talk is usually more motivated by arguing that "my rich country is better than your rich country" than "my rich country is better than poor underdeveloped countries". Oftentimes it is a proxy argument for the best degree of government involvement in the economy and other policy questions.

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.

Was the mentality different when Imperial China was rich, and will it change again as it becomes richer?

Who was rich in Imperial China? In most travelogues I've read about China in the 1800s, there was huge and deep poverty then too.

Just like with most Empires, that wealth was heavily concentrated with the rich and powerful, a very small group of elites.

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 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):

https://www.youtube.com/@kangkanginchina7

https://www.youtube.com/@Chineseruralareas

Anyway, I view this as one of the more positive uses for AI.

(Not about this particular channel)

I enjoy these videos a lot, esp. if they are about history and engineering. Some of videos have really good production quality. I guess they are probably translated fron original WeChat etc. source material.

Translation software and text-to-voice has existed for many years, why does AI make this any different?

AI is easier, faster, better, and deeply widespread

Well I'm grouping these under AI- they have been around a while for sure, but maybe they have reached some kind of critical mass there: I'm imagining people on Chinese social media talking about it as a way to make money.

Also the text to speech is in their own voice. Some are using this as a way to help pronounce english (maybe there is some language training software available for this, I don't know).

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 tend to notice the poorest, most desperate tend to be the proudest

I think this is where folks go astray. There are tons of well-off or even wealthy people who love America, give to their churches, cheer on their kids at sporting events, and have what appears to an outsider as an unbelievably high amount of nationalism. It's not really the poorest, most desperate slice of society by any measure. Have you lived outside of a major city in the US?

Maybe in the specific domain of corporate america.

In everyday life the description in the article is nothing like what I imagine America to be.

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.

This is laughably inaccurate. Author's information source is unreliable for a start (interactions with older generations, and depiction of lives in China in fictions and online media), which is already seeing China via funhouse mirrors. That perception is then filtered through a Western lens. What comes out is barely even recognizable.

Can you share some of what you know that is more accurate? I mean specific details, observations, experiences. That would be a better way to contribute, because the rest of us could learn something.

I'm not saying your critique is wrong, nor (more importantly) uninteresting. What makes it interesting is the second sentence, which—not by coincidence—is the most specific.

But do please edit out swipes like "This is laughably inaccurate" - this is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html, and your comment would be fine (if a bit too generic) without that bit.

As a casual visitor: the nationalism point rings very true, everywhere, their nationalism is more about hurt national pride than anything.

The point about the cynical view however I disagree with. I don't think I have the correct words to explain this, but basically, unlike India, Korea and maybe to a certain point Japan, they distrust this kind of American, almost forced friendliness, cheerfulness and enthusiasm and see it as fake, which is very similar to how French, Belgians, Dutch or Germans feels sometimes (I know I did my first time around in California).

That's also the reason why out of all of Asia, I feel the best working with Chinese teams (Japanese too but I have more trouble with their English).

[Edit]: forgot the point about social shame: not untrue, but geographically limited to the more rural area in my casual observation. No one in Beijing takes themselves that seriously, but in poorer areas, pride and face felt more important.

I think the thing people miss is that American friendliness is a bit fake, just not malicious. It's built on our pastoral history, but has evolved into a way to smooth down the sharp edges of a very competitive society - especially when that pastoral mindset ran headlong into the immigration that made contemporary America what it is.

Most users on /r/AskAnAmerican don't seem to consider American friendliness fake:

https://old.reddit.com/r/AskAnAmerican/comments/ehe25w/why_a...

https://old.reddit.com/r/AskAnAmerican/comments/1k7sfbv/so_w...

https://old.reddit.com/r/AskAnAmerican/comments/1nq71lc/why_...

The US is a big place. There isn’t one “American culture”. If someone in one part of the country says we should get drinks sometime they’re just saying a nice thing. In another part of the country, that means “this weekend”.

Yeah, i totally get that, it's absolutely not malicious, i'm not sure it's even fake, maybe only a bit exagerated. But for an unaware person, it _feels_ that way, and i guess when American visit France or the netherlands, or, to go back to the subject, China, our reactions must feel weird.

That was jut to tell the author that i think he misread how Chineese are on this specific point. It wasn't a criticism of North Americans at all. Really, i think this is charming now (as long as we don't work together, then i will find this infuriating and bitch about it to my SO)

In a cowboy society where everyone is armed, it pays to be polite.

I think one of the biggest differences, that the author misses, is that China is a totalitarian state.

The average citizen is not who you need to convince. The national narrative is set from the top, disseminated through the Central Propaganda Department, and enforced.

It’s not a grass roots effort to sway national policy in China AFAIK - you’re trying to convince a small group of key people who have enough of their hands on the steering wheel of a totalitarian state.

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.

Take the test:

"Am I German or Autistic?" [1]

[1] https://german.millermanschool.com/

Weird to talk about these traits like Chinese cynicism and generational trauma without even mentioning the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution.

"Social death" is a common thing on Chinese social media apparently, shame-based virtue

I assume it runs deeper, but that doesn’t feel all that foreign compared to the US, does it?

There's nothing like that in the US, not by any measure.

The whole reason you have entrepreneurs in the US is because people DON'T judge for you failing. You can always start again.

Pretty sure we judged the heck out of Juicero, Theranos, and WeWork on this very website.

Right, but Elizabeth Holmes already has investors lined up for her next attempt to revolutionize medical testing.

Not simply for failing though. Obviously there were other factors.

I don't know, I think it does, US social media is rather shameless, there's certainly no national social credit score or anything

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.

The US has 3 national credit rating agencies.

One big disconnect the US has with China is that it's a putatively communist state running a hypercapitalist economy. So they frequently do capitalist stuff with that scary word "socialism" attached to it. Like introduce a fleet of pilot credit systems and calling it social credit.

Mix this phenomenon with US high school civics class and a few propagandists and you get the American view of "social credit score".

> 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).

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...

I don't understand where you're getting "hates China" unless that's a framing of "disapproves of the Chinese government on the whole".

I have seen Zvi pushing back against the narratives that open-weights models and Chinese ICs have caught up to the frontier. Was he wrong? But I can't recall any animus against Chinese people or their talent there.

It's rather obvious Zvi is biased if you consider the totality of his work on China (since Covid to the current AI boom), not only because of his statement of facts or his policy positions but rather his writing style, which betrays his view the Chinese are somehow not only technologically but morally inferior. And he expresses them with an emotional valence similar to his treatment of Trump.

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.

Yes, exceptionalism.

Authoritarianism is bad, except for when I do it (to protect you).

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...

Pour any Rationalist article through a colander and what remains after the pseudo-intellectualism drain away is bog standard US right-wing ideology. That’s why.

Expecting rationality from rationalists is like expecting objectivity from Ayn Rand.

Did you just make that one up? It's pretty good!

One thing many Westerners get wrong about the PRC is assuming its economically monolithic, though I guarantee you that's the outcome of decades of Chinese messaging to the West. They want to appear unified, that they've done all these amazing things and everyone has benefited.

In reality, there's two separate economies within the PRC. Around 40% live in the modern world we see in images of China (skyscrapers, EVs, high-speed trains, etc.). Awesome stuff, to be sure, and that same environment has been engineered to track every single interaction you make with it. You must use Wechat; no exceptions. Say the wrong thing on the Internet? You might lose the ability to take long-distance train or airplane rides within China, let alone international travel rights.

The other 60% live with dirt floors, hand carts, and engage primarily in subsistence farming. (It's been about five years since I last looked up those stats, but it should be around the same.) The US has eliminated this level of poverty; having even access to an automobile is enough.

The PRC argues they're able to take care of all their people, but they're nowhere near out of the woods when it comes to food insecurity. Due to population and geographic realities, they simply cannot grow enough food to feed their own people, so importation is an absolute necessity. For this reason, "unlicensed" fishing fleets (no Chinese group larger than 20 people operates without de-facto government consent) sail across oceans to fish just outside a country's territorial waters.

The Chinese political economy appears to be rationalist, but few countries have more political dishonesty than the PRC. According to an old friend who extensively knows Chinese politics, there's three main political factions: pro-Xi reformers, anti-Xi old guard Communists, and everyone else. Their ability to disappear a political enemy without what we'd term "due process" is truly unheard of in the West. Local politics is arguably worse; bribery is how anything gets done, and local officials suppress incident fatalities because over a certain threshold (around 30), the higher-ups will shame them. In such a media-controlled environment, that's less difficult than you might think living in the West.

When you talk about exporting wealth with EVs, that comes with the understanding that the PRC has de-facto control of your vehicle. Most people dislike the idea of the PRC not only retaining all data gathered by your car but having remote access to disable or drive it. If that's alright with you, go right ahead.

PRC is far less likely to do something malign with my data or my vehicle than the US government and the conglomerate of monopoly business interests it represents.

Why lie, though?

Your "60% live with dirt floors and engage primarily in subsistence farming" claim is utterly indefensible. At the end of 2025, China’s population was 67.9% urban and 32.1% rural. Even in 2021 -- approximately when you say you last checked -- it was already 64.72% urban.

Here's Chongqing, China's largest city by population (~31M): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOjZPCeZzGw

You'll agree that it's by no means a slum.

Also, and even more importantly, rural residence does not mean subsistence poverty. Look at stats on Chinese rural household possessions -- they're actually reasonably well-off. (e.g., >100 air conditioners per 100 households, whereas in France only ~25% of households have air conditioners!) Little surprise, then, that the World Bank credits China with lifting almost 800 million people out of extreme poverty.

Even if I grant your claim about food insecurity -- which is also fundamentally untrue, but not worth getting into -- how is it relevant? They need to import soybeans for animal feed, so they are evil?

You don't like them for some reason -- but I still don't get it, as the reasons you've put forth here make no sense and are flimsy, paper-thin.

> Dark World thinking as described in Truth or Dare – a deep cynicism about human nature. People are by default out to get you.

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.

The vast majority of peoples' actions are beneficent, or at least polite. Otherwise, nobody would even keep their cars on roads. Stores would keep all merchandise in locked displays (not just the expensive things where the rare thief causes too much damage).

The bad experiences stand out because that's how our minds are wired, and they're so uncommon as to be surprising.

Just want to say that this isn’t a fundamental problem. Because it’s not my experience :) Love my family, and we’ve survived on the generosity of complete strangers. My folks weathered unemployment in the 90s because some anonymous angel left an envelope of money at their door.

I saw my family self destruct because a certain someone didn’t want to work.

That’s eviction #1.

You can see the hate and xenophobia coming out. When times are tough people need someone to blame.

This is not a forum where sympathy for Queensbridge is the standard.

You can make the exact same list about positive actions.

And these positive actions happen 100x more often, at least.

But indeed, nobody is perfect

One interesting thing about Chinese culture is what I'm calling "cultural diglossia". "Diglossia" by itself means coexistance of two languages. E.g. in the Arabic world, the language of the Quran is used in official documents, but the regular languages have drifted away from it.

In China this was also the case with the literary language (文言), but it went even further. You actually had to master it to advance in any official career. So a government official instead of, say, learning how to manage a city, had to learn the old philosophical texts written in a language nobody speaks. And they had to pass actual exams for that knowledge.

Now China has the Communist writings displacing these old philosophical texts. They are about as useful, and I don't think many people really care about them, but you have to show knowledge of them to advance in your career.

I don't think this is a _good_ pattern, it reinforces the belief that everyone around them is lying and that everyone's behavior is fake.

And since we're talking about culture, I highly recommend this book: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strange_Tales_from_a_Chinese_S... - it's a series of short fantasy stories written around 400 years ago.

Some of them are just weird and have stories that are nothing like European fairy tales. For example, a story of a spirit befriending a man just to talk from time to time. And then the spirit had to eventually move to another location because it got a promotion. Just imagine the culture, where even your afterlife is going to be just as bureaucratic as your regular life!

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

[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...

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.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

huh what swipes? at whom? This didn't strike me as inflammatory or abrasive at all.

The comment has since been edited.

Generally it's not so good to silently edit a post in a way that deprives a reply of its original context. It's better to mark the comment as having been edited. Not doing so risks being disrespectful to the other commenter and to readers, and is even—the internet being what it is—sometimes used as a passive-aggressive trick to make a reply sound foolish after the fact.

I don't believe that was the intention here though—most likely paimapi was simply reacting to "can you please edit out the swipes".

And even if it were, we can cut some slack because (1) it sucks to get a moderation reply. We know it stings, despite applying every way we know to not come across that way; and (2) if the corrections make the comment into a more positive contribution to the discussion, we all win—especially when the comment has a lot of good information in it, which paimapi's posts do.

Btw, when we post moderation replies in that way, it's because of the good things in the comment, not the bad things. We have a different way of responding to all-bad comments.

okay that sounds pretty fair actually and I can get behind that. Thanks for taking the time to explain.

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

[0] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S209580992...

> > 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)

I'm not following your argument with this one. American production companies (which also use and are funded by advertising) also certainly care about their bottom line, and would cut the budget of "paying actors or make up artists or the whole supporting crew" as much as they could get away with. As you note, the reason they can't get away with cutting that stuff more isn't because they're regulated more in America. Rather, they can't cut more because viewers wouldn't tolerate it. What argument are you actually making about why Chinese companies getting away with the low-budget (low-quality) "slop" isn't the fault of the people tolerating it by watching?

As a Chinese person who has lived in the US for five years, I think the “normal-to-westerners” explanation of 圣母 is wrong. Kindness and good deeds are widely celebrated on the Chinese internet, and I am often moved by them.

Suppose a country leading in AI invokes safety concerns to demand that countries trying to catch up restrict their development, while continuing its own. Calling this 圣母 would criticize the perceived double standard and moralizing at others’ expense, not concern for humanity.

The term can be misused, but presenting it as evidence that Chinese people reject ordinary compassion reflects a prejudice and misleads readers.

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.

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?")

Chinese people find American food disgusting: inauthentic slop inundated with additives and high fructose corn syrup.

Europeans feel exactly like this as well. And as an American who's lived in Europe for decades, I couldn't agree more.

There is plenty of American food that isn't "inauthentic slop inundated with additives and high fructose corn syrup", it's just happening in houses and in kitchens and not in chain restaurants or pre-made in grocery stores.

That's the thing, in US it's really hard to find a middle ground.

It's either healthy organic vegan, or junk.

[flagged]

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.

>"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."

If it were a question of genre, sure I get that. But we're talking about effectively all commercial art at this point. It has nothing to do with "western superior" racism or anything like that. Japan does not have this problem at all, even though they invented the anime aesthetic.

Where is the Chinese Mario, Elden Ring, or Metal Gear? What studio is producing a truly original distinct visual language?

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.

And what reaches the West is surprisingly little.

Take the Condor Trilogy, for example. It's not even underground or punk, it's a major cultural touchstone. Written more than 50 years ago, over 300 million copies sold, dozens of TV and cinema adaptations. And as far as I know, only the first part has officially been translated into English, and nothing into Spanish. Even the TV adaptations, some of which had several hundred million viewers in China, haven't been published in the West: I have watched some with fan subtitles, but they haven't been brought officially as far as I know.

If even such major works don't reach us, judging Chinese culture by what does reach us is nonsense.

Because we have a push-based knowledge culture that encompasses only what someone is willing to pay an advertisement channel to tell you.

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.

Is that really any different to Hollywood and western pop songs?

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.

Social games that drive conformity.

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.

To me China seems much more diverse than the US.

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.

Might I direct you to the popular American culture? The US comics for a long time were _required_ to be pre-AI slop: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comics_Code_Authority#1954_Cod...

[flagged]

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.

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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?

A productive response would be one that doesn't, if repeated, lead to the destruction of the commons (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...).

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.

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.

[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.

> 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.

my wife is chinese.

[flagged]

Please make your substantive points without putdowns or attacks, not matter how wrong someone is or you feel they are.

You may not owe cartels better, but you owe this community better if you're participating in it.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

If the Chinese are smart—and I assume they are—then they'll just kick those EA cranks out.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com