Humerous…

…But I see a blue checkmark, and I downvote. Nothing personal, but I will not support Twitter even indirectly.

It’s a statement to an audience of one: Donald Trump.

Same with Trump’s meeting with Macron and the UK. It was just to placate him.

It’s mind-boggling to think that (if we’re lucky) kids will read this in future history books, gaping at how other world leaders openly stroke the ego of the president of the United States like gullible kid. And it works, exceedingly well.

…That is, if the future isn’t a bunch of cyberpunk fiefdoms.

Also, as a bonus, put a cheap 4-inch AC filter on that box fan.

Now you have:

• Zero dust in your PC

• Noise dampening

• A high CFM air purifier, right in your room.

Or better yet: ducts.

I have zero case fans in my PC.

This. This is what the US petro lobby paid for.

They could not possibly be in a better financial situation now.

• Polymarket betting

• With no data

• Via a screenshot of a clickbait tweet?

I know this is a “memes” sub, but come on. Ya’ll are really gonna upvote this?

Oh my god.

I can’t unsee this now.

I found this amusing: all the American LLM systems I fed the translated text to for a take refused to reply, calling the topic “prohibited.”

Stepfun3.5 (locally) had no problem, and surprisingly, neither did GLM 5 over their web UI; it went and double checked the Chinese translation, in fact, and said it’s “difficult to square with international human rights norms,” along with any LLM’s usual hedged approach. I’ll put the conclusion slop in a spoiler, but here it is:

### 5.2 Major concerns and criticisms

1. **Language and education: heavy assimilation bias**

   - The law’s strong emphasis on Mandarin as the national common language, and on unified teaching materials, is widely seen by outside observers as **curtailing minority-language education**.  
   - BBC and other analyses note that it mandates Mandarin-medium education from pre-school through high school, replacing previous policies that allowed many subjects to be taught in Tibetan, Uyghur, Mongolian, etc.【turn1fetch2】  
   - While Art. 15 formally says minority languages are protected, the **practical effect** is likely to be further erosion of those languages as living languages of education and public life.

   This raises serious issues under international human rights standards on **minority language education and cultural rights**, even if Beijing argues that Mandarin improves job prospects and national unity.【turn1fetch2】

2. **Ideological uniformity and freedom of expression**

   - The “five identifications,” the obligation to love the CCP and the motherland, and the restrictions on parents transmitting views “not conducive to ethnic unity” (Art. 20) go far beyond typical anti-discrimination or hate-speech rules.  
   - They effectively **mandate a specific political and historical narrative** and can be used to penalize dissenting views on history, politics, or religion.  
   - This is hard to reconcile with robust protections for freedom of expression and belief, even if one accepts that every state promotes some national narrative.

3. **Potential for misuse and overreach**

   - Concepts like “undermining ethnic unity” or “ideas not conducive to ethnic unity” are broad and can be interpreted flexibly by local officials, especially in a context where the judiciary is not independent.  
   - The combination of:
     - vague prohibitions,  
     - extensive supervision and reporting obligations, and  
     - penalties for failing to stop “wrongful” behavior  
     creates a strong **incentive to over-enforce**, for fear of being accused of laxity.

4. **Impact on minority communities and identities**

   - Policies promoting “mutually embedded” communities and Mandarin dominance can improve mobility and opportunity, but they can also **dismantle concentrated minority neighborhoods** and weaken the social base for distinctive linguistic and cultural practices.  
   - Scholars and exile organizations argue that this is part of a longer-term **“Sinicization” campaign** to reshape minority identities around a CCP-defined Chinese nation identity.【turn2search0】【turn2search1】

   That’s why many see the law as **“legalizing assimilation”** rather than simply promoting equality and unity.

5. **Extraterritorial reach and foreign criticism**

   - Art. 63 claims jurisdiction over overseas organizations and individuals who target China with actions undermining ethnic unity.  
   - From Beijing’s perspective, this is a defensive move against foreign support for separatist or critical movements; from outside, it looks like an attempt to **export censorship** and intimidate critics abroad.

---

## 6. Overall judgment

If I step back:

- **Legally and institutionally**, the law is a significant step: it elevates “forging a strong sense of community for the Chinese nation” into a fundamental legal principle and tries to align every part of the state apparatus around that goal.  
- **From a development and stability angle**, it strengthens tools for reducing regional inequality and managing ethnic-related risks, which could enhance social stability and long-term development—**provided** implementation is restrained and rights-protective.  
- **From a human-rights and pluralism angle**, it clearly **prioritizes unity and commonality over diversity and minority rights**. The language and education provisions, ideological requirements, and broad prohibitions on “harmful” views will likely deepen fears of cultural erasure and political control, especially among Tibetans, Uyghurs, Mongolians, and other smaller groups.【turn1fetch2】【turn2search0】【turn2search1】

So my view is:  
- As a **state-building and governance instrument**, it’s coherent and ambitious.  
- As a **framework for genuine ethnic pluralism and minority rights**, it leans heavily toward assimilation and control, and is difficult to square with international human rights norms, even if it formally commits to equality and non-discrimination.

If you’d like, I can next map out specific “trade-offs” (e.g., unity vs. diversity, development vs. cultural rights) in a table or draw out a comparison with China’s earlier autonomy-based system.

I’m not a tankie. I’ll make fun of Sam Altman as an idiot all day long.

…But it is interesting how Chinese open-weights LLMs, for all their obvious gaps and kool-aid of their own, seem to be quite “uncensored” compared to American ones.

It’s… not a good sign.

I love how there’s a ton of comments and upvotes here, yet OP’s article is paywalled behind a subscription. Did anyone here actually read it?

It reminds me of a post I just saw elsewhere, with total nonsense in the link. Since it was already upvoted, the moderater left it up as an experiment: it got a boatload of upvotes and comments. No one cared, even with someone pointing this out in a comment. It was just a bunch of the same comments affirming what they already believed.

…That about sums up the internet for me now. People don’t actually care where information came from; they just want to drive by, then keep scrolling :(

Yeah, the last point is especially interesting. Some reports I’ve read suggest that Putin is a relative moderate in Russian politics, and there are some figures that would make him look tame without Putin “keeping them in line,” so to speak.

This amazes me every time I hear it.

Russian Strategist: “Comrades, NATO has surrounded our homeland with military bases. They are aggressive, needlessly paranoid, using the absurd notion of our aggression as justification. We must not encourage this aggressive expansion. What shall our strategy be?”

Subordinate 1: “Bolster our defenses in kind?”

Subordinate 2: “Seed our economy!”

Subordinate 3: “Create ties with other nations peacefully, to show them a better way than Western aggression, manipulation and coercion.”

Subordinate 4: “Unite with our allies and resist the corrupt west.”

Subordinate 5: Taps chin. “…What if we expend vast resources and hundreds of thousands of young men ‘liberating’ our tiny neighbor, as they aren’t yet in NATO? To, uh…… discourage NATO from expanding?”

The room looks to the young advisor, in dead silence.

Strategist: “Brilliant! Genius! That will certainly discourage the growth of NATO.”

Using social media has ruined my self-esteem and my relation to being a girl in this world, and nearly every day I feel hatred towards my gender, my appearance, or even teenage boys as a category. The misogyny I see from boys my age online, which is echoed in real life too, has made me grow resentful and bitter towards them, as much as I try to avoid it. As wrong as it is, I persistently find myself considering if there are truly any boys out there who are not misogynistic to some extent, and have even questioned whether I can find love in the future because of this. I understand that boys are victims of harmful content, as well as perpetrators of online misogyny – they’re growing up learning how to do this from the adults who post misogynistic videos first. But even so, I feel such a strong divide now between girls and boys in my generation, especially when the way they talk about us in real life mirrors the way they do on the internet.

That’s fucked up.

That level of misogyny is definitely learned, but it’s not just her age group. I’m floored by (for example) some comments my Dad makes, a “quiet, respectful, classy” type guy who’s never had a Facebook or Insta, who’d you’d never expect to hear insults from. And it’s definitely worse after he watches Fox News… that shit is like a drug.

My school “friends” dropped my jaw, sometimes. They got a lot from their parents, but social media (Faceboook back then) absolutely made it worse.

Even here on Lemmy, the disrespect or casual sexism from commenters sometimes makes me want to throw up. Not that I’m a particularly standup guy or anything, but the longer I live, the more I wonder “the fuck happened to my sex?” I certainly can’t critique this girl for wondering the same thing.