MelianPretext

It's a self fulfilling cycle that you can see from the testimony of LGBT Chinese individuals in Western coverage.

Because a lackluster societal tolerance climate preventing the domestic development of organic communities for LGBT rights due to the misinterpretations I've stated above, alienation drives LGBT peoples to the only real organized groups around, those formed by and subsisting on external backing through Western networked NGOs, as their only safe space. This relationship inevitably makes those individuals more amenable to the ideology behind those groups, ie. it turns them into Chinese liberal (or full blown Western imperialism apologists) types who come to oppose the government, socialist governance and their country on all grounds. None of this is necessary or inevitable and the understanding must be advocated that LGBT peoples in China need not be consequentially Chinese liberal capitalism restorationists if allowed to organize on their own terms.

It's nearly impossible to get a factual grounding of the status of LGBT peoples in China through English media, since rainbow imperialism has been fully weaponized against designated enemy regimes. Western media describes China's official policy as "no approval; no disapproval; no promotion." I can't find any literature that actually attests to this as written policy, but even if true, this position has given relatively meager ammunition for atrocity propaganda so far compared to other fronts of propaganda assault against the country. China is the chief designated enemy regime today and the only major thing I've seen thrown is primarily the "muh censorship" shtick. There is an undeniable fact that organized LGBT groups can and have been appropriated by Western interests in terms of NGO collaboration with Western funding and support, however. The chief obstacle to securing LGBT rights in China will never be the allowance of these dubiously affiliated groups, but overall societal reception. With the latter, wholly independent and organic means of collective organization will naturally form.

Through my personal trawling, the current situation as I understand it is that the more conservative elements of Chinese society see it as a foreign intrusion, similarly to how reactionaries in Russia view LGBT there. Uniquely, however, the main hurdles are mainly cognitive however and can be overcome by LGBT allied advocacy:

• LGBT toleration is not against Chinese historical tradition. There are countries where historical tradition is legitimately in opposition with the fight to secure LGBT rights. China is not one of them. The core of heteronormativity doctrine that prevails today across the world is derived from Western Christian dogmatism. However, China has had a long history of homosexual toleration and practice before heteronormativity was imposed at gunpoint by the proliferation of Western Christian missionaries, whose allowance to propagandize the population was a stipulated condition enforced onto China after the First Opium War by the Treaty of Nanjing. Paradoxically, conservative groups intent on defending Chinese tradition are in reality preventing the restoration of China's historical tradition of toleration in favor of the 19th and 20th century Western imposed heteronormative dogmatism.
• The latest concern is that for those who see China's aging population as a national security threat, they consequently therefore see LGBT peoples as abetting this demographic trend. This interpretation of conjoining LGBT liberation with declining demographics is entirely unfounded. Not only is a truly LGBT tolerant society no obstacle to stable demography, this is putting the cart before the horse.
  • The principal impediment worldwide to declining fertility rates is the absurd cost of living for the global Gen Z and Millennial generations, particularly housing costs, and China is not an exception here. As usual with Western coverage of China, if they screech something is going to collapse the country, it's more likely a good policy decision. The recent popping of the real estate bubble is the government's campaign against the skyrocketing housing prices. The fixation on enforcing heteronormativity to "resolve" demographic trends is therefore completely misinterpreting the issue.
  • LGBT peoples are not categorically anti-natalists, the clarification of this point must be fully advocated. In the current medical context, LGBT peoples will only be a contributing drag on demographic conditions if they inhabit a social and legal jurisdiction which inhibits their ability to participate in child rearing. A society that establishes an institutional adoption progress by LGBT parent aspirants would find that they are no more proportionally inclined to anti-natalism than heteronormative peoples.
    • Additionally, the developing medical context in terms of reproductive technological advancements see the real possibility of neutralizing the biological hurdles to LGBT contribution towards birth. The promotion of achieving this technological condition would be entirely synergistic with China's national objective of ensuring the vanguard of a socialist state at the leading edge of human biosciences advancement.
• I've seen it suggested from a geopolitical basis that the calculus of securing the liberation of LGBT peoples would alienate China from its Global South colleagues whose societies face similar objections to advancing LGBT rights as neocolonial assaults on traditionist lines, along with the weird social conservative bedfellows that are currently chummy with China, like reactionary Russia and (wtf) the German AfD. The logic of this cynical argument must be connected to the reality that China, by its nature as a socialist state, alienates the capitalist elites (and therefore the media culture) of Global South and capitalism restoration countries like Russia far more than LGBT rights ever will. If the goal was to make Global South social conservatives happy, the logic of that sort of accomodation followed to its conclusion would lead to the overthrow of socialism in China. Rather, China must remain at the vanguard and set an independent standard for how the Global South can liberate LGBT peoples without resorting to the commercial and imperialist appropriation and two-faced perpetual legal and political semi-toleration of LGBT in the West.

Didn't expect to see stray weeb wastewater apologia here.

All these Reddit "science understanders" can't comprehend nuclear by-products aren't just tritium alone. FFS, criticism denouncing TEPCO's discharge plan was literally published in Nikkei Japan and yet this is just apparently a "China beefing" thing.

https://asia.nikkei.com/Opinion/It-is-not-too-late-for-Japan-to-change-course-on-Fukushima-water

To explore your tangent a little more, I'd say that Western and Chinese territorial expansionism is more different than alike, precisely for the examples you've cited.

Viewing cultures in reductive civilizational cliches is not a rigorous mode of analysis, but it is worth drawing a few points from. The Qing and Yuan phases of expansion are in direct contrast with the remarkable lack of relative expansion under the so-called "Han Chinese" dynasties. Those two dynasties were established under conquest and actively contextualized their reign as one of triumphal subjugation over the general population and majority culture. Operating under that mode of cultural belief allows a more assertive geopolitical posture compared to the more passive foreign policy philosophies of the "traditional" dynasties.

The example of the Imjin War between Ming China and Korea vs Japan is a good example, because it establishes the stakes involved in clarifying this. Some scholars in South Korea (though not the consensus view, as far as I'm aware) who operate from an adversarial basis towards the entire Chinese presence in Korean history see the war as a fight for Korea's independence against not just Japan, but also Korea's Ming ally, who "actually wanted to annex Korea while they were there supporting Korea." Thus, Korea fought off not just Japan's hard takeover but also the Ming "soft takeover." K.M Swope's "A Dragon’s Head and a Serpent’s Tail: Ming China and the First Great East Asian War, 1592-1598" shows how this view is completely unfactual. The Ming were certainly frustrated at the military inefficiency of lacking direct control in Korea while conducting the defence against Japan, but they were never interested in annexing Korea as a result of this.

The real reason for this allegation is that those scholars simply aren't capable, through their Hobbesian cynicism, of conceiving a foreign policy relationship that isn't based on an agenda of conquest and eventual annexation in the style of European imperialism. As such, they see shadows of European settler-colonialism everywhere in history, even when the evidence isn't there. By this, their motive is to essentially whitewash the genocidal European mentality that brought about the past 500 years of global trauma by saying that "Europe just simply got to it first, everyone else would have done it as well in the same position."

I call this the "You would have been a Holocaust supporter if you lived in Nazi Germany" cultural relativism-fetishist argument you used to see all the time on Reddit, which forgets through its assumption that, no, not everyone is a hetero-normative White Christian and most people in the world would have been thrown into the camps if they were somehow transported to Nazi Germany.

Nevertheless, a rejection of that mode of conduct is how China historically behaved by-and-large under the "traditional" dynasties and how modern China aims to be.

I would add that through this, the parallels between the "Ming takeover" allegation and the modern propaganda against China's BRI could not be more plain. The argumentation is basically the same. "Sure, those countries may be right to resist the Western/IMF neocolonialist 'hard takeovers,' but they also have to watch out for China's aid 'soft takeovers' too."

I collect ancient coins, which is a bit different from more "modern" coin collecting.

The most important thing is staying to your budget. Don't get anything that would set you back financially, because apart from a few specific issues, coins are not for "investing" in. It's always good to keep in mind that it's just a hobby. Try not to get caught up in the rat race of getting a coin just because it's "rare" or spending far more on the more pricey of two nearly indistinguishable options just because that one's a better grade.

If you're interested in a series, or a theme, get the lay of the land first and find out how many coins are in that set and how much it would roughly be. For example, I've heard stories of collectors who had to spent above and beyond just because of the opportunity cost of spending time gathering a collection and paying eye watering amounts to complete the set with that last missing piece they didn't know was going to be so rare and expensive going in.

Interesting theory, though I don't think the Reddit Genshin crowd would take it well.

I think what I've noticed in Hoyoverse games isn't the presence of any explicit ML themes, but rather the absence of explicitly liberal ones. That's the one distinctive facet of their storytelling that often leaves the impression that there's something different between their themes and Western media tropes.

The most plain example of this isn't in Genshin, but in Honkai Star Rail. There's a moment in the first planet of the game where the land is near collapse from environmental disaster, on the brink of civil war due to an apartheid regime and badly demoralized about the future. The authority figure, who is ideologically compromised to put it mildly, is deposed and the new leader decides to refrain from publicly broadcasting how compromised the previous government has been. They choose to do this because it would badly shake confidence in the planetary leadership and because knowing that the past authority purposefully exacerbated the world's class segregation would inflame tensions towards civil war. Revealing to the public the nature of the past leadership would do nothing but harm at a critical moment, especially when the planet was finally offered an opportunity to rebuild by resolving the environmental crisis.

Let's just say the Reddit crowd did not take this well. One of the hallmarks of liberal storytelling is the importance on individualist moral purity towards core liberal values. The ultimate deontological anti-utilitarian mentality. In a context like HSR's, you are meant to tell the truth, no matter how destructive it might be, and damn the consequences. The liberal mindset loves to bash utilitarian "end justifies the means" decision making, but their "means justifies the end" reverse calculus is far more destructive. Walking away from a fire you gave the spark to is worth the moral absolution of having stuck to your "principles."

In other words, although the surface rationale for this principle is "democratic accountability to the collective," the result of valuing the means over the end means that the true intent is that individual self-gratification is more important than the collective common good. Wthholding the "truth" from their perspective is a massive sin, and the idea that someone could commit a sin for the sake of the betterment of the community is completely anathema to the liberal worldview. There are stories like that of HSR's dilemma in liberal Hollywood and Video game storytelling, but it is always baked in a overarching thematic emphasis that what the character did is wrong or at best, indicate to the audience through a whole song and dance that the story is self-indulgently bathing itself in "grey," "complicated" themes. HSR simply has the leader character make the decision in an aside and then the story moves on. The player character gets to make a dialogue choice to blurt out "a lie is always a lie" HBO Chernobyl-style liberal outburst, but it's a comestic line and the leader ignores the player's input. This is not their decision to make.

The story was flamed on Reddit for revealing Hoyo's Communist roots to detractors on one end and with the most favourable interpretation being that the government forced Hoyo to insert "pro-authoritarian" propaganda themes in the story. They can't fathom the idea that "leaders withholding societally damaging information" is a fact of human governance rather than a trait of the West's designated adversaries. The West simply puts a bow on it and calls it "classified information" or "national security" to dodge their surface claims of "democratic accountability." They always mentally masturbate to their fantasy of the Soviets not fully disclosing about Chernobyl and never reflect on how they were led by the nose to the Iraq War by an administration that openly lied about WMDs, by consecutive governments that openly sponsored programs like MKUltra, by endless lies from their leadership ranging from the Vietnam War Gulf of Tonkin false flag to the Nicaraguan Contra war crimes. None of those crimes by their own leadership was ever punished and yet the liberal theme that "the truth will always come out and lies will never last" is still odiously and hypocritcally pervasive.

This is what I've noticed that Hoyoverse's storytelling has. Not a presence of leftist themes but an absence of liberal ones.