While the OHCHR assessment (Aug 31, 2022) does not indicate genocide, its authors are being pedantic. The findings you cited indicate crimes against humanity including reproductive-rights abuses. (click “UN report and China’s response to it” then scroll to the bottom to download the PDF) They might not be lining them up in the streets and shooting them, but they ARE trying to exterminate them, and treat them as less than human in the process. Whether the report authors use the word “genocide” is immaterial.
Read the report yourself, you’ll see that what’s happening is unchecked criminal, inhumane activity directed at the Uyghur population and other predominantly Muslim ethnic minority communities in Xinjiang.
This is incorrect I’m afraid. The OHCHR assessment should have indicated genocide. I suspect that admitting you’re wrong is difficult for you, but in this case it’s patently clear for the reasons I stated above. This difference in terminology is pedantic; what’s important is the suffering and persecution that’s going on in China, and you’ve failed to address any of it. I wish you the best of luck in your journey, but I have no more time to donate to you. Have a day.
The OHCHR assessment should have indicated genocide.
Uhuh, so It’s not incorrect, you just disagree
I suspect that admitting you’re wrong is difficult for you
Go back to reddit you fucking loser.
This difference in terminology is pedantic
Are, you’re into the “Words don’t mean things!” phase of argument.
This difference in terminology is pedantic; what’s important is the suffering and persecution that’s going on in China, and you’ve failed to address any of it.
Uhuh, so like I said, just blatant Motte and Baillie
I wish you the best of luck in your journey, but I have no more time to donate to you. Have a day.
“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
― Jean-Paul Sartre
Well then why did you say the rest of the post of the person you’re responding to doesn’t matter? You did say that, didn’t you? You told them to stop and that their argument is faulty, but didn’t deny the actual claims. That implies to me you don’t care. If you do care, you did an extremely poor job of showing it by telling them to stop talking.
So if the above is so completely off base, why don’t you continue your argument with the poster above?
That’s too bad, because neither of those is the case. I personally think your attempt to kill the conversation above with your “stop typing” and again now with this comment is an actually an attempt to hide your head in the sand, but I guess we’ll never know.
Seems that way. Person 2 above said “it’s not x but it is y”, person above said “you can stop at it’s not x” implying to me they are fine with “but it is y”. What’s wrong with that inference?
What’s wrong with it is it’s factually inaccurate, fucking duh. You can stop at “it’s not genocide” because that by itself is an entirely accurate statement, everything you said after that is bullshit, and the comment you’re referring to was not ambiguous about that at all so you have absolutely no excuse for pretending otherwise.
No, he said everything else is some type of castle. I looked this castle up and it aligns well with the idea that he’s trying to shut down the other claims without considering them.
From the wiki:
where an arguer conflates two positions that share similarities: one modest and easy to defend (the “motte”) and one much more controversial and harder to defend (the “bailey”)
So he’s technically saying that the rest of the post is modest claims which are easy to defend, ie he agrees with Y. (I’m assuming the bailey is genocide and the motte is the claims of ethnic cleansing w/out genocide)
No, this is wrong, the PRC is not exterminating Uyghurs. Uyghurs were, as ethnic minorities, exempted from the one child policy, and now have better access to things like IUDs for proper family planning. The PRC is not trying to exterminate Uyghurs, your claims are fantastical.
I cited it as a beginning of understanding the allegations, which you yourself go above and beyond into fantasy by claiming China is “trying to exterminate the Uyghurs.” Did you read China’s response, or the Qiao Collective’s resource compilation?
["While individual women have spoken out before about forced birth control, the practice is far more widespread and systematic than previously known, according to an AP investigation based on government statistics, state documents and interviews with 30 ex-detainees, family members and a former detention camp instructor. The campaign over the past four years in the far west region of Xinjiang is leading to what some experts are calling a form of “demographic genocide.”
The hundreds of millions of dollars the government pours into birth control has transformed Xinjiang from one of China’s fastest-growing regions to among its slowest in just a few years, according to new research obtained by The Associated Press in advance of publication by China scholar Adrian Zenz.
“This kind of drop is unprecedented…there’s a ruthlessness to it,” said Zenz, a leading expert in the policing of China’s minority regions. “This is part of a wider control campaign to subjugate the Uighurs.”
IUD usage is increasing as Xinjiang develops economically and family planning becomes more important. The Uyghur people were exempt from the One Child Policy, and as a consequence the increase in IUD usage seems more drastic than it actually is, plus Zenz was caught literally making up numbers.
Yep, any time I see the word “IUD” on anything related to Xinjiang I ctrl+f “Zenz” and 99/100 times it pops up. The last 1/100 is just a link to Zenz indirectly.
I do mind you asking, and yes, I do understand what you linked. I’ve read the report, and again, did you read China’s response, and did you read Qiao Collective’s resources? The PRC is not exterminating Uyghurs, again, read the response itself and Qiao Collective’s resources. Read section 25 of China’s response.
Reading your source, it sure sounds like genocide.
That said, it seems like a summary rather than a detailed report and I can’t find the source in the page.
The other people responding to you are saying “did you read the statement by the perpetrators of the genocide denying it?” Sounds like a rather silly statement.
Can’t really weigh in on this but on the face of it it does feel like tankie behaviour.
EDIT: I’ve now skimmed the UN Human Rights report and it’s definitely genocide. The only possible claim against this is that all of their information is false, which seems unlikely.
I’ll also add that the first response above linking to the UN source I’ve seen copy pasted elsewhere. That doesn’t necessarily mean much but, yeah.
Are countries not allowed to offer evidence to clear their name of allegations against them? Are independent groups not allowed to create detailed compilations of resources that go more in-depth than the UN report or China’s response? I don’t think it’s a bad thing that leftists offer counter-evidence to western allegations. China isn’t just saying “no lol” in their response, they provided data and evidence backing up their case.
In a legal battle, do you only listen to evidence from the side accusing the defendant? Only skimming only the accusation seems like you genuinely aren’t interested in the truth of the matter and only want an excuse to agree with the accusation.
As for copying and pasting, yes, I reuse the same comment for the same low-effort claims, because it’s still useful. I’m not going to bespoke craft a new response with the same evidence and support for essentially the same claims.
https://www.globalr2p.org/countries/china/
While the OHCHR assessment (Aug 31, 2022) does not indicate genocide, its authors are being pedantic. The findings you cited indicate crimes against humanity including reproductive-rights abuses. (click “UN report and China’s response to it” then scroll to the bottom to download the PDF) They might not be lining them up in the streets and shooting them, but they ARE trying to exterminate them, and treat them as less than human in the process. Whether the report authors use the word “genocide” is immaterial.
Read the report yourself, you’ll see that what’s happening is unchecked criminal, inhumane activity directed at the Uyghur population and other predominantly Muslim ethnic minority communities in Xinjiang.
Great, done, stop typing. Everything else is just blatant Motte and Baillie
This is incorrect I’m afraid. The OHCHR assessment should have indicated genocide. I suspect that admitting you’re wrong is difficult for you, but in this case it’s patently clear for the reasons I stated above. This difference in terminology is pedantic; what’s important is the suffering and persecution that’s going on in China, and you’ve failed to address any of it. I wish you the best of luck in your journey, but I have no more time to donate to you. Have a day.
Uhuh, so It’s not incorrect, you just disagree
Go back to reddit you fucking loser.
Are, you’re into the “Words don’t mean things!” phase of argument.
Uhuh, so like I said, just blatant Motte and Baillie
“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.” ― Jean-Paul Sartre
So your argument is “they are just dehumanizing and trying to exterminate a group of people, and I’m chill with that”? A bold position.
No, that’s very obviously not “my argument”, but I wouldn’t expect you to be above lying and putting words in my mouth.
Well then why did you say the rest of the post of the person you’re responding to doesn’t matter? You did say that, didn’t you? You told them to stop and that their argument is faulty, but didn’t deny the actual claims. That implies to me you don’t care. If you do care, you did an extremely poor job of showing it by telling them to stop talking.
So if the above is so completely off base, why don’t you continue your argument with the poster above?
Removed by mod
That’s too bad, because neither of those is the case. I personally think your attempt to kill the conversation above with your “stop typing” and again now with this comment is an actually an attempt to hide your head in the sand, but I guess we’ll never know.
Removed by mod
That is not something anyone here has said, dumbass
Seems that way. Person 2 above said “it’s not x but it is y”, person above said “you can stop at it’s not x” implying to me they are fine with “but it is y”. What’s wrong with that inference?
No
Valuable addition. I ask “why is that inference wrong” and you say “no”.
👍
🍆💦😜
What’s wrong with it is it’s factually inaccurate, fucking duh. You can stop at “it’s not genocide” because that by itself is an entirely accurate statement, everything you said after that is bullshit, and the comment you’re referring to was not ambiguous about that at all so you have absolutely no excuse for pretending otherwise.
No, he said everything else is some type of castle. I looked this castle up and it aligns well with the idea that he’s trying to shut down the other claims without considering them.
From the wiki:
So he’s technically saying that the rest of the post is modest claims which are easy to defend, ie he agrees with Y. (I’m assuming the bailey is genocide and the motte is the claims of ethnic cleansing w/out genocide)
Lol try harder patriot
Another solid argument that gets right to the real point of all this.
No, this is wrong, the PRC is not exterminating Uyghurs. Uyghurs were, as ethnic minorities, exempted from the one child policy, and now have better access to things like IUDs for proper family planning. The PRC is not trying to exterminate Uyghurs, your claims are fantastical.
it’s in the article you cited my dude
I cited it as a beginning of understanding the allegations, which you yourself go above and beyond into fantasy by claiming China is “trying to exterminate the Uyghurs.” Did you read China’s response, or the Qiao Collective’s resource compilation?
["While individual women have spoken out before about forced birth control, the practice is far more widespread and systematic than previously known, according to an AP investigation based on government statistics, state documents and interviews with 30 ex-detainees, family members and a former detention camp instructor. The campaign over the past four years in the far west region of Xinjiang is leading to what some experts are calling a form of “demographic genocide.”
The state regularly subjects minority women to pregnancy checks, and forces intrauterine devices, sterilization and even abortion on hundreds of thousands, the interviews and data show. Even while the use of IUDs and sterilization has fallen nationwide, it is rising sharply in Xinjiang."]( https://apnews.com/article/ap-top-news-international-news-weekend-reads-china-health-269b3de1af34e17c1941a514f78d764c#%3A~%3Atext=The+Chinese+government+is+taking%2Cmajority+to+have+more+children)
You’re citing the very same professional propagandist for the Victims of Communism Foundation I spoke of earlier. This is not a real source, it’s fiction. Here’s a decent source going over Zenz and his background as a propagandist.
IUD usage is increasing as Xinjiang develops economically and family planning becomes more important. The Uyghur people were exempt from the One Child Policy, and as a consequence the increase in IUD usage seems more drastic than it actually is, plus Zenz was caught literally making up numbers.
100%[1] of new[2] IUDs[3] in China[4] are being forced[5] on Uyghurs[6]
It is known ↩︎
It is known ↩︎
It is known ↩︎
It is known ↩︎
It is known ↩︎
Source: Zenz ↩︎
Yep, any time I see the word “IUD” on anything related to Xinjiang I ctrl+f “Zenz” and 99/100 times it pops up. The last 1/100 is just a link to Zenz indirectly.
Did you not read my comment? I posted a link to the assessment which has an annex containing China’s response.
… how old are you? if you don’t mind me asking
I do mind you asking, and yes, I do understand what you linked. I’ve read the report, and again, did you read China’s response, and did you read Qiao Collective’s resources? The PRC is not exterminating Uyghurs, again, read the response itself and Qiao Collective’s resources. Read section 25 of China’s response.
…you just linked the annex that I mentioned above. You’re not even reading my responses. Best of luck to you.
I am reading your responses, you insisted on just accepting the UN report alone without checking China’s response nor the Qiao Collective resources.
The state department thanks you for your service patriot
Reading your source, it sure sounds like genocide.
That said, it seems like a summary rather than a detailed report and I can’t find the source in the page.
The other people responding to you are saying “did you read the statement by the perpetrators of the genocide denying it?” Sounds like a rather silly statement.
Can’t really weigh in on this but on the face of it it does feel like tankie behaviour.
EDIT: I’ve now skimmed the UN Human Rights report and it’s definitely genocide. The only possible claim against this is that all of their information is false, which seems unlikely.
I’ll also add that the first response above linking to the UN source I’ve seen copy pasted elsewhere. That doesn’t necessarily mean much but, yeah.
Are countries not allowed to offer evidence to clear their name of allegations against them? Are independent groups not allowed to create detailed compilations of resources that go more in-depth than the UN report or China’s response? I don’t think it’s a bad thing that leftists offer counter-evidence to western allegations. China isn’t just saying “no lol” in their response, they provided data and evidence backing up their case.
In a legal battle, do you only listen to evidence from the side accusing the defendant? Only skimming only the accusation seems like you genuinely aren’t interested in the truth of the matter and only want an excuse to agree with the accusation.
As for copying and pasting, yes, I reuse the same comment for the same low-effort claims, because it’s still useful. I’m not going to bespoke craft a new response with the same evidence and support for essentially the same claims.
Thanks !