Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

China suppression of Uighurs meets U.N. definition of genocide, report says

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 239 posts

Re: China suppression of Uighurs meets U.N. definition of genocide, report says

#221

Post by 0x8BADF00D »

api wrote: post #215
0x8BADF00D wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fundamentally, civilization is about control. The control is codified and accepted only because there is a certain amount of inhumanity that is required for it. I would argue that killing comes naturally to humans, and other acts of similar cruelty. Morality and ethics are learned behaviors that are distilled from societal mores. If "thou shall not kill" or some equivalent in another religion didn't exist, for exampl…

Is/ought... I agree that humans are entirely capable of it. Is it the best thing for us to do? My biggest problem with secular thought and especially the "pop atheist" variety is that it seems to often lead to is=ought. Regardless of the reality behind any form of theism, theistic thought never accepted that equality. It's always posited that there must be a "better than the way things are now." Some secularists dism…

I agree but in order to have a “better society” governed by the “better angels of our nature”, you essentially need a bully. You need an entity that does all of the morally “bad” things.

Re: China suppression of Uighurs meets U.N. definition of genocide, report says

#222

Post by api »

0x8BADF00D wrote: post #221
api wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is/ought... I agree that humans are entirely capable of it. Is it the best thing for us to do? My biggest problem with secular thought and especially the "pop atheist" variety is that it seems to often lead to is=ought. Regardless of the reality behind any form of theism, theistic thought never accepted that equality. It's always posited that there must be a "better than the way things are now." Some secularists dism…

I agree but in order to have a “better society” governed by the “better angels of our nature”, you essentially need a bully. You need an entity that does all of the morally “bad” things.

I think you need an entity capable of doing the bad things, if only to stand up to others who do, but I'm not convinced there is some conservation of badness that prohibits the net amount of it from decreasing over time.

Re: China suppression of Uighurs meets U.N. definition of genocide, report says

#223

Post by refurb »

m12k wrote: post #195
refurb wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What could the West have done beyond doing what they were already doing - fighting a war with Germany? Blown up rail lines leading to the camps? Would the Germans have said “oh, well let them go then.” No, they would have found other ways to murder them. It’s not that different than China. You want to stop the genocide? Well, prepare for a major war with millions of deaths on both sides.

You seem to misunderstand my comment. My point was that the West only fought a war with Germany because they invaded Poland and other neighboring countries. Had the Nazis not done that, the West would most likely not have fought them, even if the concentration camps had come to light.

Ahhh...I misinterpreted your post. That’s a fair point.

Re: China suppression of Uighurs meets U.N. definition of genocide, report says

#224

Post by genoapol »

Udik wrote: post #179
zackees wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_Convention From the Wiki article, the UN definition of Genocide is met if... ...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life c…

It seems to meet the definition of genocide if sterilisation methods are used, as it is claimed in the article. On the other hand, it's a bit of a tricky point because China has nation-wide policoes about fertility (the one child policy and its regional variations) so it's not clear if the Uighurs are especially singled out or simply punished for not respecting a national law.

>China has nation-wide policoes about fertility (the one child policy and its regional variations) so it's not clear if the Uighurs are especially singled out or simply punished for not respecting a national law.

The interesting fact is, the one child policy, in all its year of existence, never applied to Uighars and non-Han muslims.

Makes me think these camps are precisely what they say they are, "to nonviolently deal with extremists and separatists".

The alternative would be an Afghanistan-like war to rid certain areas of extremist groups which would probably result in major collateral damage and more innocent casualties.

Re: China suppression of Uighurs meets U.N. definition of genocide, report says

#225

Post by totetsu »

orwin wrote: post #183
throwaway6274 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

~50% of the population continues to support abortion, so I’d say we have a very long way to go.

If contraception worked 100%, or if we were able to disable the libido whenever we want and prevent all rape from happening, maybe i would agree with that. Since we're not, until someone convince me the violinist argument is not receivable[0], i would continue to support women wanting early abortion. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion

I'd like to see some of Thomson's thought experiments made into VR minigames and released on steam.

Re: China suppression of Uighurs meets U.N. definition of genocide, report says

#226

Post by Can_Not »

baskire wrote: post #33
codekansas wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it just me or does this happen for every article about anything China-related?

I’ve noticed it to be the primary defense mechanism of China sympathizers. Funnily enough USSR used similar arguments

> Christian Christensen, Professor of Journalism in Stockholm, argues that the accusation of whataboutism is itself a form of the tu quoque fallacy, as it dismisses criticisms of one's own behavior to focus instead on the actions of another, thus creating a double standard. Those who use whataboutism are not necessarily engaging in an empty or cynical deflection of responsibility: whataboutism can be a useful tool to expose contradictions, double standards, and hypocrisy

> Others have criticized the usage of accusations of whataboutism by American news outlets, arguing that accusations of whataboutism have been used to simply deflect criticisms of human rights abuses perpetrated by the United States or its allies. They argue that the usage of the term almost exclusively by American outlets is a double standard, and that moral accusations made by powerful countries are merely a pretext to punish their geopolitical rivals in the face of their own wrongdoing

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

Re: China suppression of Uighurs meets U.N. definition of genocide, report says

#228

Post by Paradigma11 »

foobar_ wrote: post #201
oefrha wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In reply to a flagged sibling: what's there to see in the edit history? There was an edit war (or maybe I should use the plural, didn't look too closely), which is common on controversial topics, and judging from the talk page it has been resolved with a compromise. Bottom line, dude did coauthor that book, and even the title is telling enough. Also, unrelated, it's sad that any comment trying to discuss or question…

It seems the comments about iraq, yemen, afghanistan them have been downvoted / flagged. I guess this one too. There's a documentary on netflix showing the 13th amendment's relation to the labor camps, shocking to say the least. I don't think there is anything new in the article. It's the standard rhetoric used by UK/US media. Also notice the conspicuous absence of Saudis, they too are involved in messy labor practic…

China did liberate the area from feudalism by killing the ppl living there in the first place: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dzungar_genocide China intentionally and resettled the uighurs there in first place after having killed 80% of the population that lived there.

How can you make an historical argument without mentioning this small detail?

Re: China suppression of Uighurs meets U.N. definition of genocide, report says

#229

Post by oefrha »

Paradigma11 wrote: post #228
foobar_ wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems the comments about iraq, yemen, afghanistan them have been downvoted / flagged. I guess this one too. There's a documentary on netflix showing the 13th amendment's relation to the labor camps, shocking to say the least. I don't think there is anything new in the article. It's the standard rhetoric used by UK/US media. Also notice the conspicuous absence of Saudis, they too are involved in messy labor practic…

China did liberate the area from feudalism by killing the ppl living there in the first place: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dzungar_genocide China intentionally and resettled the uighurs there in first place after having killed 80% of the population that lived there. How can you make an historical argument without mentioning this small detail?

And you failed to mention the small detail that what you linked to happened in 18th century, not post WWII, or anywhere close to 20th century. Not even led by the same ethnicity — Qing rulers were Manchus. Do we really need to bring up colonialist genocides?

Re: China suppression of Uighurs meets U.N. definition of genocide, report says

#230

Post by cvlasdkv »

elliekelly wrote: post #35
sneak wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t have any direct political ability to meaningfully influence policy in China. I, in theory, can participate in US elections and purportedly have some say in how things are done in the US. Additionally, I don’t have a language barrier to inciting others to action in the US. I think it’s a very hypocritical situation, and I wonder specifically about the who and the why for the huge anti-China campaign in the glo…

If we know what the Chinese government is doing to ethnic minorities does the motive behind the media covering it even matter? So long as the atrocities stop I don’t think I really care who benefits from having a public discussion or how.

Do we know what the Chinese government is doing to ethnic minorities? I've seen enough evidence from both sides to know that it's despicable but that it is also not a genocide.

That is where the accusation of "whataboutism" comes into play, because given my limited time and influence I'd rather focus on issues of similar or greater magnitude (indigenous rights, climate change, the prison system, healthcare, white supremacist structures in our countries, imperialist tendencies that result in freedom bombings) over posturing about re-education and vocational camps in China that have humans rights abuse. I would 100% prefer the latter to not exist but it really feels like a distraction tactic and something we in the West have no power over.

Post reply on HN