Unless the companies were planning to give sign-on bonuses for pregnant workers, then they should be punished severely. This is ridiculous and part of the problem of why China's birth rate is so low.
China demographics thread.
- Thread starter gadgetcool5
- Start date
I think traitor or not should not be determined by something like "genetics" which cannot be selected.
It's no personal achievement to born white, black, or Chinese. Nor is it any personal achievement to be born tall, average, or short.
You really had no input in that nor is it something you can change.
For example, should an child born in Israel always support it even as it commits genocide which will led to its active destruction?
Rather it should be decided by personal choices. When you climb up a proverbial ladder, do you pull the ladder up with you or do you help others up? In other words, do you make things worse for others in pursuit of self-centered gains?
If an ethnic Chinese is born in the USA, they're an American. That is not intrinsically wrong, that was just where they were born. But if they see their society participate in discrimination or war crimes, do they just close their eyes and pretend nothing is wrong? Do they actively participate in hopes they won't be the next target? Do they shift blame instead onto a foreign nation? Those are all bad decisions that reflect their poor personal qualities. Inaction permits abuse, so they are guilty all the same - even if it is lesser than the active participant.
If a Chinese-American responds by organizing their local community, having young men walk alongside the elderly to ward off attack, offering free or subsidized self-defense courses, etc. are they traitors? Suppose a Chinese goes abroad to a Western country, finds themselves in better conditions, and sends money back home either from the homeland to use to develop or send others are they a traitor? That was what many in the Qing and early Republic era did and they formed the backbone of much of the initial FDI when opening up. If a Chinese goes to an imaginary country without discrimination and spend their efforts improving their local community, are they a traitor?
If a white American goes to China and talks bad about America, that's not bad because of not being loyal to their homeland. It's bad because they're making things worse for others just in pursuit of self-gains. It is supremely selfish behavior.
If an Nigeria goes to China and talks about how bad Nigerian schools, that's bad too. But if they're talking about this with wealthy investors and convince them to invest and build better schools in Nigeria is that person a "traitor"? I don't think so.
Traitors are marked by their selfishness; their self-above-all-else individualism. Screw-you-I've-got-mine mentality.
I think the main point is to know who your own people are; being born in America may make you 'American' in nationality but you will not be accepted as American if you are of certain ethnicities. The rest is semantics and missing the point.
Know who will accept you unconditionally, and support and help them. Know who aim for the demise of your people, and treat them as you would an enemy.
I think this was true about 15 years ago, but that has definitely changed now. America is only going to become more diverse, there is no reverse. As a byproduct of that the definition of an American changes as well.
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
If you reversed "Westerner" and "Chinese," isn't it exactly what desperate Americans say about all Chinese hanjian? I strive to be intriniscally different from my enemy, not just his Chinese counterpart.
But life does not agree. Genetics will determine what everyone thinks of you. If China wins WWIII, even a hanjian can reap the benefits since just by walking around, people assume he is a member of the winning team and thus, of superior quality. If China loses WWIII, this same hanjian will be ridiculed for belonging to an inferior people, and when he protests saying that he supported America, they will just pity him as a loser who wants to be a winner so bad he doesn't care if he loses himself. Playing for your own team, you can win or lose depending on how everyone does as a collective; playing for the wrong team, you just can't win no matter what happens.
Ever been in a debate competition? You're assigned a view to defend and it's yours no matter what you really think. Win or lose, people will judge your skills by your performance; they don't care about your excuse that you didn't agree with the view you were assigned. Life is like that with races and ethnicities.
Regardless of the outcome, he will be bound to the success of Israel. People will assume he supported it and the result will be like the Chinese hanjian example from above.
I do not understand the pertinence of this ladder to this conversation.
Disagree; see hanjian example above. Where you were born is unimportant. A cow born in a tree is not a bird; it is still a cow.
They recognize their Chinese roots, throw away the paper passport and embrace DNA to become a dominant member of one's own country rather than a marginalized minority. They were already on team China anyway; they just didn't know it. Everybody else did though.
No, the nation sent them to do these benign things. But if they find that they have the talent, and became educated in an important STEM field, and then they find that they've become a scientist with great prominance and knowledge, then failure to deliver this back to China but continued servitude to the US against China in the tech race makes then a traitor.
If that country is antagonistic to China and their intent was to improve that country to put it in better shape to antagonize China, then they are.
I don't follow this logic. How did they make things worse for others? It's bad because they disgrace themselves. However, it is a little different with Americans because there is no such thing as genetically American. An American can always slide out and say that he's genetically German/Nigerian/Mexican/etc... and thus has no allegiance to America. That makes sense.
No, definitely not. His intent was to improve his own country. There is a difference between badmouthing your own country for the entertainment, pleasure and acceptance of a hostile host country and communicating the needs of one's own country to a host country that is likely to be able to help.
Not necessarily; traitors betrayed the will and national cause of their own country. It's that simple. If a man sold national secrets to an enemy nation to get money for his mother's/wife/children's operation or to provide financial assistance to some third world village in need, he's still a traitor, not a selfish one, but still a traitor nonetheless. Traitors are marked by betraying their countries, not by any other parameter.
This is changing but for the worse. As a dominant power comes to realization with the uncertainty of its rule, it becomes increasingly hateful and xenophobic, especially towards immigrants of the country that made it come to such a realization.
This is evident in the rise in hate crimes in the US, particularly towards Asians, even America leg-huggers like Koreans and Japanese, once again highlighting the incredible importance of genetics in determining what team people put you on.
Last edited:
Staedler has a very good point here, I think it also depends on the nuance on how they talk about their homeland and people of their homeland. What separates Sun Yat-Sen from Miles Guo? What about associates of Miles Guo?
This talk about traitors is also largely determined by historical narratives and the flow of time. Did Wang Jingwei always have the "traitor" trait? If he died eight years prior he'd probably have been remembered much more fondly. What if the Axis won WWII, would Wang Jingwei be a traitor then? Or would he only be a traitor when the Japanese gets kicked out of China?
It's probably not helpful to look at people through a lens of weather they possess a traitor trait or not, better to view phrases such has hanjian as a more ideological term, with no personality connotations. Some people are just ideologically more flexible than others, so they sometimes gets called traitors.
Last edited:
Yes, I've been in many debate competitions but unlike debates, life isn't zero-sum. Just because one side believes and engages in zero-sum behavior, doesn't mean you need to also be just as zero-sum as them. In fact, zero-sum behavior is self-defeating that's why we don't find it as the dominate behavior in nature. The same goes for individualism. These are all minority-beneficial activities - parasitical in that they rely on the overall population not acting the same way. Once the minority grows large enough, the negative impact of the behavior drags the group down far enough that the individual benefit is not enough to cover and the population dynamic collapses. So you shouldn't ignore it, but zero-sum behavior should never be generally encouraged in your own population even if your adversities are engaging in it. In fact, I would say societal zero-sum behavior is exactly why America is in decline and China is not.
It's why the actual reality of disaster is the Tonga boys, not Lord of the Flies.
So even through genocide, you must support your nation no matter what. Israel conducting genocide causes blow-back from other nations which may lead to Israel's disintegration. Since no one can work against the nation's goals, then the only way to ward off the possibility of disintegration is to eliminate all detractor nations. Hence the solution is to genocide those detractor nations. But further genocide leads to more consequences, therefore an expanding web of nations that must be genocided. Ultimately, the solution is to genocide all other nations since your nation is already committed to genocide in Palestine. As Israel isn't a big nation, the answer is to build as many nuclear bombs and bunkers as possible, fire them at all countries and obliterate them to ensure your nation has the most people leftover in the aftermath.
If appearance and passing is all that matters, all you need to do is go under painful total plastic surgery to ape the bone structure of others. There are total skin transplants these days too, so skin-color isn't even fixed. You can literally smash your bones, rearrange them, then get total skin replacement from whatever ethnicity you prefer. The survival rate may be less than 1% now, but it's possible and the survival rate will only continue to increase. With certain things you can even do it earlier, just how the West has kids with hormonal blockers & supplements before puberty to allow for radically different bone structure growth. The obvious trans-sexuals have done it post-puberty with their locked-in bone-structures and the ones who did it pre-puberty are much harder to discern. So if a Hanjian wins the lotto in surgery, beats the odds, and makes it through with a white-man's physiometry, does he now have a free pass to attack China without being a regarded as a traitor?
Suppose in the future we have designer babies. If a Chinese decides to edit their babies DNA to be completely white-passing, then that baby can be as anti-Chinese as they want since they're going to be seen as white anyways? Actually we don't even have to go to the future. There are plenty of white-passing Uighurs and other minorities in China. Suppose they have no friends and no living relatives and smuggle themselves over the border to Russia and somehow Russia thinks its just an undocumented villager (China was like this for the longest time). Then to the world this white-passing Chinese is a Russian. They proceed to attack China - are they traitors? No one but they themselves knows they're actually Chinese.
Last edited:
The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
In an ideal moral world, everyone would be treated based on the content of our character, and not any circumstances of our birth, whether it be nationality, ethnicity, racial status, gender, or economic and family situation (the last one being perhaps most important).
In a practical world, that is not true, or only true sometimes. But it is still something to aspire to.
As far as immigration goes, China has already 56 ethnicities. Is there something about the 56 ethnicities that are magical? No. Anyone can assimilate and become Chinese no matter what you look like. At the same time, mass immigration would prevent full assimilation and cause social divisions. In my humble opinion China should accept more permanent immigrants than it does today, but at a lower level than the West, for example 100,000 per year. If these immigrants are drawn from friendly Belt & Road Initiative countries, and preference is given to well-educated, skilled immigrants and exceptional talents, it would certainly be a positive policy.
It's not going to solve China's demographic problems and shouldn't be used as a substitute for efforts to raise the birth rate, but it could help bring in the best talent to China and give it more exposure to the world. I also think coming into contact with more people from different ethnic and cultural backgrounds would have a positive impact on most Han Chinese people.
In an ideal moral world, everyone would be treated based on the content of our character, and not any circumstances of our birth, whether it be nationality, ethnicity, racial status, gender, or economic and family situation (the last one being perhaps most important).
In a practical world, that is not true, or only true sometimes. But it is still something to aspire to.
As far as immigration goes, China has already 56 ethnicities. Is there something about the 56 ethnicities that are magical? No. Anyone can assimilate and become Chinese no matter what you look like. At the same time, mass immigration would prevent full assimilation and cause social divisions. In my humble opinion China should accept more permanent immigrants than it does today, but at a lower level than the West, for example 100,000 per year. If these immigrants are drawn from friendly Belt & Road Initiative countries, and preference is given to well-educated, skilled immigrants and exceptional talents, it would certainly be a positive policy.
It's not going to solve China's demographic problems and shouldn't be used as a substitute for efforts to raise the birth rate, but it could help bring in the best talent to China and give it more exposure to the world. I also think coming into contact with more people from different ethnic and cultural backgrounds would have a positive impact on most Han Chinese people.
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
Of course he is a hanjian; to establish a rival government to the one fighting a war against a hostile nation and to go to Japan to essentially illegitimately surrender for to Japan for China, how can he not be a hanjian? The term was coined for Chinese who helped the Japanese in WWII; it was basically made for people like him.
You call traitors "ideologically flexible"??? Well that just proves it even further that they have a specific trait that makes then lack loyalty thus making them untrustworthy.
1. There are times when zero sum is appropriate and times when cooperation is appropriate. Going for the latter when the former is correct will have you reaching for handshakes when others are reaching in to punch your face.
2. America is trailing China for many many reasons; that they have a more zero sum mentality while China is less combative would not rank high on that list. As a matter of fact, I do think you've confused the cause and effect. America is more zero-sum because it is doing poorly compared to China; it is not the other way around. America is lazier, less innovative, has less people with inept leadership, etc...
3. I'm not talking about winning or losing or even doing what's best. As Sun Tzu notes, foreign traitors are to be coveted for what they can do for you, however, since we have such hatred and disgust for Chinese who betray China, I have trouble stomaching giving a good reception to the American/Western version of it. This is more about principle rather than strategy. I was raised to always honor and uphold my nation no matter where I go, not specifically because I'm Chinese, but because I've come to realize that as the definition of a self-loving, self-respecting person. I have no respect for the opposite character regardless of what direction his betrayal is in.
4. If my line of thought spread, America would completely fall apart, disintegrate from everyone going thier own ways. Your way of thinking is what America wants as it toys with people's minds and and what it preys on when it gets people to work for American interests against their own.
What does the "reality of disaster" mean?
Israel simply does not have the power to make that work, even with as many nukes as they can build. Rather, a loyal Israeli can follow the government line or he can work within his government to convince the people to take a less contentious approach as this path forward will only lead to their own destruction. In either case, he should never conspire with foreign agents or governments against his own and his cause should always be to uplift his own country, never to injure it for what he perceives to be unacceptable behavior.
What the hell are you talking about? First of all, you're going into fantasy land with your examples and that is a telling sign of defeat in a logical debate.
Secondly, I said DNA and self-respect/love are the core tenants. Uphold both and you would never try to do any of those abominations that you mentioned.
Last edited:
It is completely different. Objective truth exists. China has not provably killed millions both on purpose and for no reason in the past 20 years. China has led one of the greatest expansions of prosperity and declines in poverty not just in China but worldwide. Entire industries owe their existence to China.
An objective view would congratulate China on these achievements. The fact that the opposite occurs is due to state sponsored hatred and bias.
It is not a virtue to parrot state sponsored hatred and bias, just like it is not a virtue for a German to agree with Adolf Hitler in 1935. When the Nazi propaganda told Germans to reject the evidence of their eyes and ears and listen to the regime, those who obeyed were not the courageous ones.