tweet link -> https://twitter.com/AP/status/1447147267669037057?s=20

archived -> https://web.archive.org/web/20211012141845/https://twitter.com/AP/status/1447147267669037057?s=20

For the records, here is a NED official tweet mentioning they have been "funding Uyghur groups" since 2004:

img -> https://i.imgur.com/Wr8EOYS.png

tweet -> https://twitter.com/NEDemocracy/status/1337063301113581568?s=20

archived -> https://web.archive.org/web/20211012142639/https://twitter.com/NEDemocracy/status/1337063301113581568?s=20

Here is a video someone posted below the tweet -- of a guy discussing this shift in narrative (using this article, specifically). He makes the case that the *actual* cultural genocide occurred/was occurring when Salafism was injected into the region and supported by outside actors in the Western axis. I think the video is pretty good, and, among other things, he shows that NGO internal memos refer to the "concentration camps" as 'vocational centers' -> https://youtu.be/78s7yP2BdF0?t=0

Here is Lawrence Wilkerson spilling the beans also -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrufheMU-WQ&t=0s

    • LeninWeave [none/use name]
      ·
      3 years ago

      They will unironically say it was a real genocide, but America heroically shamed them into stopping. :amerikkka-clap:

      • 420blazeit69 [he/him]
        ·
        3 years ago

        You can push back on that, though.

        "Do you really think a nuclear superpower did a 180 on a major policy because of criticism from NATO? If so, why doesn't the U.S. do the same thing when they receive much broader international condemnation (e.g., on Cuba)? Do we ignore criticism while China accepts it and changes?"

        • LeninWeave [none/use name]
          ·
          3 years ago

          This is the type of thing where they'll go "yeah, that makes sense" after you spend an hour arguing, then go back to their regular beliefs the next day. For many people, "west good else bad" is an orthodoxy that they're not even aware of.

          Some people can be convinced more easily than others, yeah, and these are good arguments that will at least force them to think for a moment. But I mainly meant that the first response of these types would obviously be to maintain they were right the whole time and that it only stopped because America intervened, despite how ridiculous that is. You can (and should, unless it's not safe) always offer pushback, as you say.

          • 420blazeit69 [he/him]
            ·
            3 years ago

            You're absolutely right. Changing someone's mind on a topic like this takes repeated convincing and involves lots of backsliding. I think understanding this from the jump will help us get less frustrated.

            • LeninWeave [none/use name]
              ·
              3 years ago

              I think understanding this from the jump will help us get less frustrated.

              Yeah, for sure. People often tend to think everyone came by their beliefs rationally, but it's generally not true. Commensurately, it's hard to rationally argue people out of them.

              • 420blazeit69 [he/him]
                ·
                3 years ago

                The expectation should be something like:

                You're going to have to talk to most people about this stuff a dozen times for it to really stick. Between each of those conversations they're going to backslide at least a little. And maybe half the people you talk to aren't going to come around no matter what you say.

                  • 420blazeit69 [he/him]
                    ·
                    3 years ago

                    Exponential growth is a nice thing to think about with this. If the size of the left doubles each year -- that is, if each leftist convinces only one other person to become a leftist every 12 months -- it won't take long to grow real big.