It's not disingenuous because there is significant evidence that the reasons are sincere, as outlined in the original comment. What's your response to the terrorism problem in the region?
That authoritarian governments have used terrorism as a catch-all to pursue their twisted ends before and continue to do so in <not China> even today? Secessionists and militants are consistently branded as brainwashed or outright recruited terrorists by administrations, their agents, and their sympathizers when their power is challenged.
Fine, let's concede that the stated motives are real and legitimate. Is everyone just fine with re-education and cultural assimilation? You deserve freedom only as long as you toe the party/state line? And this is acceptable to people because their goals apparently align? Forgive me for I have libposted but that doesn't sit well with me. Today it's ISIS, who's to say what reason it is tomorrow? I understand these are concrete problems that need to be dealt with one way or the other but the idea of a state having the power to do that is not something I can support, maybe even critically.
My final question is that in a country with a press situation as warped as China, even if it is for national security reasons, how does one establish credibility of a source, external or internal? Because I'm not convinced even by the media in supposedly more "free" and "democratic" countries.
I don't know, even reading my comment now feels like I'm approaching this in bad faith but I don't know what it will take to realign my value system to such an extent that any of this is acceptable. You can ask me to post hog or reply with pigpoopballs, I guess. I'll go through the other comments here on my own time too.
I kind of feel like that's a slippery slope because it can be flipped on you just as easily, the only difference being who is in power. But I understand where you're coming from.
Is everyone just fine with re-education and cultural assimilation? You deserve freedom only as long as you toe the party/state line? And this is acceptable to people because their goals apparently align? Forgive me for I have libposted but that doesn’t sit well with me. Today it’s ISIS, who’s to say what reason it is tomorrow?
I can’t tell you who it will be tomorrow, but yesterday it was Pu Yi, the last emperor of China. Rather than executing him and all his relatives, like the Bolsheviks did to the Romanovs, the CPC reformed him and had him live as a gardener.
but the idea of a state having the power to do that is not something I can support, maybe even critically.
The 2009 Urumqi riots were triggered when news of a few Uyghurs working outside of Xinjiang being murdered by a mob of Han over a misunderstanding made its way back.
The Uyghur populace killed hundreds of Han on the streets, encouraged and coordinated in part by an unfiltered Facebook.
The Han populace prepares to mobilise and fight back, but was stopped by the police.
I’m telling you this to suggest that the inclinations of the masses might not be the best mechanisms to rely on for resolving ethnic tensions and right wing radicalisation.
My final question is that in a country with a press situation as warped as China, even if it is for national security reasons, how does one establish credibility of a source, external or internal? Because I’m not convinced even by the media in supposedly more “free” and “democratic” countries.
Chinese media tends to have a different tone to western media. I don’t think it’s inherently less trustworthy, but it’s different. That’s why, in the above post, I keep references to Chinese media to a minimum, and instead rely on western secondary sources, and leaked Chinese primary sources used by western media. It’s not perfect, but it’s about as good as I can get.
It's not disingenuous because there is significant evidence that the reasons are sincere, as outlined in the original comment. What's your response to the terrorism problem in the region?
That authoritarian governments have used terrorism as a catch-all to pursue their twisted ends before and continue to do so in <not China> even today? Secessionists and militants are consistently branded as brainwashed or outright recruited terrorists by administrations, their agents, and their sympathizers when their power is challenged.
Fine, let's concede that the stated motives are real and legitimate. Is everyone just fine with re-education and cultural assimilation? You deserve freedom only as long as you toe the party/state line? And this is acceptable to people because their goals apparently align? Forgive me for I have libposted but that doesn't sit well with me. Today it's ISIS, who's to say what reason it is tomorrow? I understand these are concrete problems that need to be dealt with one way or the other but the idea of a state having the power to do that is not something I can support, maybe even critically.
My final question is that in a country with a press situation as warped as China, even if it is for national security reasons, how does one establish credibility of a source, external or internal? Because I'm not convinced even by the media in supposedly more "free" and "democratic" countries.
I don't know, even reading my comment now feels like I'm approaching this in bad faith but I don't know what it will take to realign my value system to such an extent that any of this is acceptable. You can ask me to post hog or reply with pigpoopballs, I guess. I'll go through the other comments here on my own time too.
deleted by creator
I kind of feel like that's a slippery slope because it can be flipped on you just as easily, the only difference being who is in power. But I understand where you're coming from.
I can’t tell you who it will be tomorrow, but yesterday it was Pu Yi, the last emperor of China. Rather than executing him and all his relatives, like the Bolsheviks did to the Romanovs, the CPC reformed him and had him live as a gardener.
The 2009 Urumqi riots were triggered when news of a few Uyghurs working outside of Xinjiang being murdered by a mob of Han over a misunderstanding made its way back.
The Uyghur populace killed hundreds of Han on the streets, encouraged and coordinated in part by an unfiltered Facebook.
The Han populace prepares to mobilise and fight back, but was stopped by the police.
I’m telling you this to suggest that the inclinations of the masses might not be the best mechanisms to rely on for resolving ethnic tensions and right wing radicalisation.
Chinese media tends to have a different tone to western media. I don’t think it’s inherently less trustworthy, but it’s different. That’s why, in the above post, I keep references to Chinese media to a minimum, and instead rely on western secondary sources, and leaked Chinese primary sources used by western media. It’s not perfect, but it’s about as good as I can get.
I really appreciate your insight on this. You've given me a lot to think about.
deleted by creator
Thanks for your reply. Along with a lot of other responses on this post it has given me a lot to look up and think critically about.