this post was submitted on 13 Mar 2026
228 points (70.1% liked)
Memes
54968 readers
603 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
They can both be bad.
They aren't, though. China is a rising socialist state, and the US is a dying, brutal empire run be pedophiles and fascists.
Holy Orientalism.
You are a racist.
I hope you get a chance to look in the mirror and better yourself.
Wow. Just wow. You can't possibly be this wrong, can you?
Let's start with naming things. Han. The predominant Chinese culture you refer to is Han Chinese.
Let's look at one law that everyone loves to talk about - the One Child Policy.
Did you know that the One Child Policy only applied to Han Chinese? That's right. The Chinese government explicitly and openly promoted heterogeneity by limiting Han birth rates explicitly. Some other minorities were also restricted, that's true, but they were restricted to two children - double the birthrate of the Han. All the other minorities were unrestricted.
That's just one example of how wrong you are. Shall we do others?
Tibet and Xinjiang educate their children in their native language, in their native cultural traditions, and the governments of those regions run those regions in accordance with their best interpretation of the confluence between their own traditions and the Chinese system of government.
Let's compare that to the US or Canada, shall we? No? You don't want me to explain how Indian boarding schools literally beat children for speaking their native tongue, forcibly cut their traditional hair styles, and trained the children to hate their own families? You don't want to hear about how such boarding schools existed into the 80s? Should we talk about US eugenics programs and the forced sterilization of a full third of the women on Puerto Rico or the forced sterilization of black and Indian women on the mainland? Is that too much for you?
How much more wrong can you possibly be?
China officially recognizes 11 languages that can be used to conduct official business. Eleven. Most American politicians couldn't even name 11 languages.
Do you still think China enforces homogeneity? Are you so committed to your position that evidence cannot do anything to your Yellow Peril brain?
"China did eugenics" "These other places did eugenics, too, though"
This is not a good defense of China. Lmfao.
Yeah... so, recognizing that population competition is one of the ways that dominance can be exerted, China choosing to limit birth rates of the most populous ethnicity, which happens to be the dominant one, would be the opposite of eugenics used for reinforcing dominance. It's actually an incredible defense of China because it shows that not only are they nothing like the West, the West can't even conceive of what would motivate the dominant people to restrict their own privileges to reverse historical trends caused by dominance of their forebears.
You've got to be kidding comparing the One Child Policy of the dominant ethnic group, which the government itself was predominately composed of, and literal genocide and cultural genocide of white supremacists against the people they violently colonized.
That doesn't make it not definitionally eugenics. It is definitionally eugenics. I have trouble dancing around this topic because I CAN understand the benefits of limiting population growth, and I even understand what you're saying about "dominant ethnic groups".
But at the end of the day, eugenics is eugenics is eugenics. Feel free to make an argument about how this is morally acceptable eugenics. It's still eugenics.
Edit: and no, you don't get to decide what is an "incredible defense of China". I do. The neutral party leftist who hates America and is interested in Chinese policies but is also not stupid enough to fall into a new propaganda sinkhole to cope with the fact that I was propagandized my whole life. This is a bad defense of China.
You people are determined to reduce every single word used to describe a crime against humanity to meaninglessness, aren't you? You did it first with genocide (genocide is now when you implement jobs training programs and enshrine cultural protections into law, but you do it while being Asian and not capitalist) and it seems like you're hellbent on doing it with eugenics too
Lmfao "it's not eugenics to have specific breeding programs which specifically limit specific ethnic backgrounds" 😭 yeah dude I'm totally being reductive and you're not just defending literal eugenics by using mental gymnastics.
You are the one being reductive.
edit: "i love licking boots and believe all the propaganda of other governments because america government is the only bad one!!! I have no ability to read between lines and critically analyze when human rights violations are taking place!! But none of that matters because what about America??? What about America??"
Yup, there you go doing it again. War is peace, ignorance is strength, not breeding is a breeding program
No matter how many times you compare antonyms nonsensically, it won't change that eugenics is eugenics.
You conveniently worded it as "not breeding is a breeding program", which is intellectually dishonest and dances around reality. Nice.
So no, "not breeding" is not a breeding program. Government mandated restrictions on who can breed and how much is a breeding program.
Try not to do that bullshit again, I'm not stupid, in fact it seems I'm a million times smarter than you if that's the best you got. Why don't you try being honest?
Sure, it's totally not a breeding program. It just controls several key factors about who is allowed to breed and how much and when. It's not a breeding program! It's a "selective" breeding program, which is somehow better.
Nice.
This is nonsense gish gallop.
Xinjiang
Uyghurs are not being tortured and killed.
The best and most comprehensive resource I have seen so far is Qiao Collective's Xinjiang: A Resource and Report Compilation. Qiao Collective is explicitly pro-PRC, but this is an extremely comprehensive write-up of the entire background of the events, the timeline of reports, and real and fake claims.
I also recommend reading the UN report and China's response to it. These are the most relevant accusations and responses without delving into straight up fantasy like Adrian Zenz, professional propagandist for the Victims of Communism Foundation, does.
Tourists do go to Xinjiang all the time, yes. You can watch videos like this one on YouTube, though it obviously isn't going to be a comprehensive view of a complex situation like this.
Tibet
Tibet was a feudal slave society backed by the CIA. The PLA liberated Tibet. Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth:
-Dr. Michael Parenti
Tian'anmen
Of the few hundred people that died in the riots and fighting, the square was dispersed peacefully. The truth about Tian'anmen is that hundreds of protestors and PLA officers were killed in Beijing that day as the PLA advanced towards the square, but that the square itself was evacuated peacefully, which matches leaked US cables and the CPC's official stance on what it calls the "June 4th incident". This is a rejection of the commonly reported story of 10,000 people being killed on the square itself, which originated from a British diplomat's cable. Said diplomat was later confirmed to have evacuated well before.
Western nations intentionally sensationalize the quantity of deaths and the character of the events. This is also why Western Nations don't frequently report on the South Korean Gwang-Ju massacre that occured around the same era, where the South Korean millitary murdered thousands of High School and College students protesting against Chun Do-Hwan's dictatorship. All of what I said is backed up by the Wikipedia page for Tian'anmen Square Protests and Massacre, such as Alan Donald revising his estimate from 10,000 to the low thousands yet BBC continuing to report the 10,000 figure:
Democracy
The form of democracy and the mode of production in China ensures that there is a connection between the people and the state. Policies like the mass line are in place to ensure this direct connection remains. This is why over 90% of the Chinese population supports the government, and why they have such strong perceptions around democracy.
The Chinese political system is based on whole-process people's democracy, a form of consultative democracy. The local government is directly elected, and then these governments elect people to higher rungs, meaning any candidate at the top level must have worked their way up from the bottom and directly proved themselves. Moreover, the economy in the PRC is socialist, with public ownership as the principle aspect of the economy. Combining this consultative, ground-up democracy with top-down economic planning is the key to China's success.
I highly recommend Roland Boer's Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance. Socialist democracy has been imperfect, but has gone through a number of changes and adaptations over the years as we've learned more from testing theory to practice. Boer goes over the history behind socialist democracy in this textbook.
You're arguing against numbers published by Harvard. None of what I said is "Kool-Aid." Secondly, using publicly funded information is not an "appeal to authority," saying someone knows xyz because they are a specialist in something is an appeal to authority (and that isn't a fallacy).