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

      the argument from no refugees is orders of magnitude stronger

      100%, I'm pretty sure it's actually literally impossible to have a genocide with no refugees.

    • spectre [he/him]
      ·
      3 years ago

      On this note, people argue that there are many Muslim countries that have the diplomatic position that there is not issue with PRC treatment of Uyghur people. I think that this is a reasonable argument against "genocide", however I don't see this as a strong argument that "there are no human rights abuses happening here, nothing to see at all".

    • SolidaritySplodarity [they/them]
      ·
      3 years ago

      I agree that implying no mass death = no genocide is wrong, but it's important to note that various sinophobic narratives around the treatment of Uyghurs (which I assume you're referencing) are baiting in that direction already, pointing to birth rates and contraceptives as evidence of genocidal policies.

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

        There's a tendency for AES-bashers to retreat to a lesser accusation multiple times. Genocide, cultural genocide, human rights abuses, repression, etc. Just retreat to the next accusation every time contrary evidence is presented.

        • LeninWeave [none/use name]
          ·
          edit-2
          3 years ago

          This post was a reply I accidentally made to the wrong comment, and several people seem to have upbeared it after I deleted it lmao.

          deleted by creator is apparently a popular take.