I think this was a good read, but as a US citizen with no connection to China, it's hard to say. I imagine what this kind of post would sound like but in the reverse, someone in China commenting on these kinds of social dynamics for US citizens, and I can't help but think it'd be a pretty crude characterization of our reality.
I would have really liked it if the author offered their perspective of the US version of these dynamics in a more one-to-one way. It'd let me "calibrate" their characterizations based on how accurate their version of the US side of this is based on my experience.
Regardless, I do think this attempts to at least apply nuance to this kind of discussion, and, of course, the author made it clear that they're aware of the kinds of faults I'm describing, so at least there's that.
It's someone who isn't culturally Chinese commenting on Chinese culture to a non-Chinese audience with the framing of solving the problem of proselytizing "Rationalism" to Chinese culture.
I take it with the same grain of salt that I would any religious missionary describing another culture, or any of the "angry foreigner in China" Youtube accounts. It may be accurate to some degree, probably more correct than someone with no connection whatsoever to the culture, but is it clearly not impartial.
It's someone who isn't culturally Chinese commenting on Chinese culture to a non-Chinese audience with the framing of solving the problem of proselytizing "Rationalism" to Chinese culture.
This.
A person raised in the US since age 4 and citing internet sites like the Chinese equivalent to
RoyalRoad and Twitter as generalised examples of Chinese culture, nationalism and rejection of empathy should not in any way be taken seriously. Proselytising only enhances the disqualification, as does his endorsement of a complete misinterpretation of the Three Body Problem. There was a lot of xenophobia going on in that book and the positive characters were all Chinese.
nater5000 · · focus · HN ↗
I would have really liked it if the author offered their perspective of the US version of these dynamics in a more one-to-one way. It'd let me "calibrate" their characterizations based on how accurate their version of the US side of this is based on my experience.
Regardless, I do think this attempts to at least apply nuance to this kind of discussion, and, of course, the author made it clear that they're aware of the kinds of faults I'm describing, so at least there's that.
krapp · · focus · HN ↗
I take it with the same grain of salt that I would any religious missionary describing another culture, or any of the "angry foreigner in China" Youtube accounts. It may be accurate to some degree, probably more correct than someone with no connection whatsoever to the culture, but is it clearly not impartial.
frm88 · · focus · HN ↗
This.
A person raised in the US since age 4 and citing internet sites like the Chinese equivalent to RoyalRoad and Twitter as generalised examples of Chinese culture, nationalism and rejection of empathy should not in any way be taken seriously. Proselytising only enhances the disqualification, as does his endorsement of a complete misinterpretation of the Three Body Problem. There was a lot of xenophobia going on in that book and the positive characters were all Chinese.