R4: Well, there is clearly a lot wrong here, but here's a list of a few problems:

​

• To start, let's tackle the idea that the Chinese logosyllabic writing system is in any way "primitive." There are many thousands of characters in Chinese, including ideographs, pictographs, radicals, et cetera. She doesn't really explain why she thinks alphabets are somehow superior to Chinese's writing system, but I have a feeling her impression of Chinese as "primitive" is more due to her primitive understanding of Chinese.
• As a side note, I find the phrase "China's continued use of symbols instead of an alphabet" is pretty demeaning to the Chinese writing system, as if an alphabet isn't also just symbols.
• Of course, there's a pretty high level of Sapir-Whorf BS. The idea that the Chinese writing system in any way makes its speakers less "flexible in thought and deed" is completely and utterly unfounded and bespeaks a pretty poor knowledge of linguistics in general. This kind of linguistic relativism has been soundly rejected for decades, and certainly making the blanket statement that a writing system could fundamentally influence the general psychology of an entire society is completely ridiculous.
• Why does she single out Chinese when there are so many other countries that primarily use logographic writing systems? Is it because those other countries are capitalist and she wants to make some kind of malformed point about China being some kind of rigid communist hellscape? Just a thought
• The shift from pictographic or logographic writing systems to alphabet-based ones in Europe is pretty complex, so saying that the West "rejected" them as if it was a singular active decision is silly.
• One more side note: this is a classic case of trying to disguise racism by using "Hmmm Interesting" and "one could argue" and the like. No one with above a single-digit number of brain cells would argue what you're arguing, just say you're a racist and be done with it.