321–330 of 338 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't look too deeply, as I said.
Maybe you should spend half a minutes checking to see if what you are suggestion is supported by available data before starting a conversation about it
1. The populated of "genocided" Uyghur ethnic group has increased from 10.17 million to 12.71 million from 2010 to 2018. This sort of contradicts with the concept of genocide. The increase rate of ~25% is higher than Xinjiang ~14% and much higher than the main ethnic group Han ~2%. 2. I personally tried really hard to track down a source that DOESN'T ULTIMATELY LEAD TO ADRIAN ZENZ but has failed to do so. As GameOfFr…
If you read the UN definition of genocide [0], you'll see that a population increase doesn't contradict (the UN concept of) genocide at all. The key is intent. [0] https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml
> It consists of the Greek prefix genos, meaning race or tribe, and the Latin suffix cide, meaning killing.
It's often claimed that the UN definition is somehow radically broader than the popular definition (i.e., extermination of an ethnic or religious group). This just isn't true. In fact, the UN states that its definition of genocide is stricter than the popular definition:
> The popular understanding of what constitutes genocide tends to be broader than the content of the norm under international law.
The UN definition is very clear that "genocide" means a deliberate plan to physical (not culturally) destroy a group:
> To constitute genocide, there must be a proven intent on the part of perpetrators to physically destroy a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. Cultural destruction does not suffice, nor does an intention to simply disperse a group.
There's simply no evidence that the Chinese government is enacting a plan to physically eliminate the Uyghurs. The claims that China is carrying out a genocide are ludicrous. It's a gambit on the part of the US government: they're making a transparently false, but extremely serious accusation, on the bet that they won't be called out on their lies. Nobody wants to be viewed as a "genocide denier," the Western public knows pretty much nothing about China, and the media is usually willing to go along with the government narrative about "enemy" countries (see: Western media complicity in the lies about Iraqi WMD in the lead-up to the Iraq War).
Finally, even if one were to accept the claim that the UN definition of genocide is broader than the popular definition (it isn't, but let's play along), the people making this accusation would still be engaged in a dishonest rhetorical game. When the public hears "genocide," they think of the Holocaust. That's what the US government wants people to think when it accuses China of "genocide." When really challenged (which rarely happens in major media), defenders of this charge will claim that the UN definition is radically different from the popular definition. But the whole reason they're using this charged word is because they want people to think that what China is doing is equivalent to the Holocaust.
I'm always surprised how little interest there seems to be from the international muslim community in the Xinjiang situation, given that at least parts of it really blow up over even minor anti-Islam actions by single individuals quite regularly. The actions of China seem at least in part aimed at extinguishing Islam as a religion in the region, which would seem far worse than some person drawing a cartoon. But maybe…
That’s why, as a westerner, I consider the Uyghur issue not to be ‘our’ problem. It’s terrible what’s happening there, but there are more than 2 billion muslims in the world who can do something about it.
As someone firm in belief in Humanism and Liberalism, i consider it a crime against humanity. It is not an east/west issue and not a religious issue to be of concern only for people of the same religion. China does this because they want the border to be more than a line on the map, to be a border of their socialist nation, a border of thought, culture, language, of national identity. Their central government hates that people in Xinjiang have family in Kazhakstan, Pakistan and Kashmir, that they speak with those people, share traditions and religion and history with them, instead of identifying first and foremost with the nationality of the capital city. For them that is a weakness of their nation, a discrepancy from their ideal, a problem for their central bureaucracy in need of a solution, and the authoritarian-nationalist solution is to destroy the very concept of an Uyghur using violence to the point where it becomes a genocide. This is not a problem of uyghur ethnicity, religion or culture, it is a problem of chinese national-socialism.
And that China subscribes to such an ideology is very much our problem as westerners as well, not only because humanitarianism calls for solidarity with the oppressed, not only because liberalism must oppose such ideologies on principle, but because the world is unifying and the Chinese Government will throw in a billion rigged votes while holding a gun to the head of all those unwilling to agree. Ignoring the chinese governments abuse of the people living inside their borders is like ignoring some rich neighbor beating their kids and shouting they will kill anyone looking funny at them, while they run for major, saying it will all be fine as long as you keep looking away.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He's made multiple baseless accusations in the past such as there supposedly being a genocide of the Uyghurs. It's perfectly possible for an assertion to be both: (1) promoted by crank, and (2) entirely substantiated on its own merits, independent of whatever crank might say about it. One such example would be the ongoing fact of the genocide currently in reality (not "supposedly") underway against the Uyghur populat…
> It's perfectly possible etc. that's true. However, when essentially all mainstream and government claims are based on said crank's claims, and in line with government interests, that is very suspicious. > One such example would be the ongoing fact To the best of our knowledge, that is a false statement. There is no genocide underway. You only have (1.), not (2.).
Which they manifestly are not. The evidence is overwhelming, and comes from numerous independent sources.
There is no genocide underway.
If you want to live in that universe, that's fine for you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe you should spend half a minutes checking to see if what you are suggestion is supported by available data before starting a conversation about it
sva_ is right and you're wrong. 273 of 2884 pictures show women under 30, the vast majority are men. Note that the "of 2884" doesn't change when you modify the filter settings. I didn't measure whether it took me more than half a minute to figure that out.
But thanks for contributing some actual information; that is exactly what I was suggesting should be the minimum bar to contribute to such a conversation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
sva_ is right and you're wrong. 273 of 2884 pictures show women under 30, the vast majority are men. Note that the "of 2884" doesn't change when you modify the filter settings. I didn't measure whether it took me more than half a minute to figure that out.
"you’re wrong"? -- I didn't make any assertions. But thanks for contributing some actual information; that is exactly what I was suggesting should be the minimum bar to contribute to such a conversation.
You made the (wrong) assertion that I checked the archive for less than "half a minute".
In fact I did check the "actual information" for more than "half a minute", and reported on my findings from that. Further analysis proved my hypothesis to be true.
I even added a disclaimer that I did not check all the data.
I'm always surprised how little interest there seems to be from the international muslim community in the Xinjiang situation, given that at least parts of it really blow up over even minor anti-Islam actions by single individuals quite regularly. The actions of China seem at least in part aimed at extinguishing Islam as a religion in the region, which would seem far worse than some person drawing a cartoon. But maybe…
Over the last 20 years, the US has waged war in predominantly Muslim countries. A conservative estimate is that the US is directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Muslim civilians over the last 20 years, in wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and many other countries. Add to that US support for Israel, and US support for Saudi Arabia's horrific war in Yemen, and the US has essentially no credibility when it claims to be oh so concerned with the rights of Muslims in China.
In this light, the US' accusations against China over Xinjiang look like cynical political posturing. The obviously hyperbolic nature of the accusations (including deploying the word "genocide," despite the complete lack of evidence that any mass killing is occurring) just make the US' posture on this issue look even more cynical and crass.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Liberal reforms have been implemented by central governments al over the world. England -> Hong Kong, EU -> Poland, US -> Mississippi. That's just more whataboutism. Where other countries fail to do that, I'll fault them just as strongly too. Not that it's relevant, since the Russian government isn't Muslim but Lebanon, Tunisia, Egypt, Iraq, Iran have all had governments that at some point implemented liberal reforms…
Ok, let's take a look at the examples. Lebanon - a country torn apart by religious conflicts which could not even solve the physical security problem, as well as recognize the existence of its most important neighbour. Had plenty of run time mostly wasted. Worse than Chechnya. Tunisia. Had a mild democratization which did not backfire to this point. Looks OK. Probably better outcome than Chechnya. Egypt. Had a pointl…
As if Mubarak or Gaddafi or Saddam were religious figures. Millions of Muslims stood ready to build on liberal reforms and died for it. You don't get to just ignore them because you can't deal with nuance.
I could use the same logic to ask you to name one province under Russian rule that hasn't turned into a corrupt political dumpster fire. If Chechnya/Dagestan/Cherkess/Tatarstan etc. were the only such wastelands your case against Islam might be less empty - but it's the same for every oblast in the entire country.
Russia is illiberal - because Putin hates liberalism - and that is why it will impose illiberal systems on its territories. That is enough of a reason to criticise it (because murdering critics and journalists for example is bad). Don't pretend it's hamstrung by the brutality of its uncivilised Muslims, that's just you projecting your bigotry.
We don't like Putin -> We don't like his impact on Russia -> And you're damned right we're going to say something about it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://chinatribunal.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/China-T... explainer video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2bUusvh3c0
Your response on VoC propaganda is to double down on even worse FLG propaganda?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok, let's take a look at the examples. Lebanon - a country torn apart by religious conflicts which could not even solve the physical security problem, as well as recognize the existence of its most important neighbour. Had plenty of run time mostly wasted. Worse than Chechnya. Tunisia. Had a mild democratization which did not backfire to this point. Looks OK. Probably better outcome than Chechnya. Egypt. Had a pointl…
You're pretty selective about the time periods you base your arguments on, ignoring anything before the 80s but you're certain there can't be another Chechen war 15 years after the last one - because it will always be bastion of stability now and tinderboxes aren't a thing. All of those countries listed have had liberal periods (Iraq - check your history) but you fail to explain how the complex causes for subsequent…
The prevailing narrative is such: A country is a poor and corrupt, then it becomes a liberal democracy and becomes a permanently stable, prosperous country. But that's not what happens to Muslim countries. After a "liberal period" they tend to resume being theocratic, autocratic or defunct, and barely solvent, states. Why have those periods at all then? What did those millions of Muslims die for?
I don't think you are qualified to be in this discussion if you consider whole Russia a "dumpster fire", even more if you think Russia "turned into" a dumpster fire (compared to what period?). This shows a significant level of "liberal" bigotry and chauvinism. I visit Tatarstan's (one of the most economically developed regions) capital Kazan' every year and I don't consider it a "dumpster fire". Neither are its residents unless they happen to be acolytes in your "liberal democratic" cult.