It's really frustrating, I was talking to someone about how successful China has been in de-radicalization of reactionaries. But they responded to this by saying they're only successful because, and I quote "put them all in concentration camps and killed them"
Has anyone here been successful in deprogramming people about this topic? If so any good sources I can use to dissuade them? I tried telling them that the UN report, if you read it, just says that there's concerns about abuse by internment offcials, and there's no evidence of genocide. But when I say this they just dismiss it as if the UN is controlled by the PRC. It's like a religion to liberals to believe anything bad about China and can get really frustrating.
Can you link that please?
https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/countries/2022-08-31/22-08-31-final-assesment.pdf
So no mention of the word genocide, and just concerns about possibly arbitrary detentions in 2017-2019, gotcha. Thanks a lot for the source. I wonder how people react to this when they can now see a patently open genocide on social media anytime they want.
Genocide is a fashionable term to throw around these days, and much argued over; but the UN report you all keep lauding doesn't seem particularly flattering when actually read.
Nice of you not following with the part where it says that the extent is unknown, and the report on forced medical treatment, poor conditions of detention and violations of reproductive rights, is based on anonymous interviews to a few tens of people, as is literally any source that makes these claims because there's no other evidence to support those claims, despite it being 7 years since the beginning of the supposed atrocities. It brings nothing new to the table compared to the old Amnesty International report, based on the same methodology, proving further that no real findings have been made.
Also, your comment of "genocide being a fashionable term these days" is absolutely crazy.
Do you mean the bit before where it says "2017-2019 and potentially thereafter"?
Of course interviews are few and anonymous, and information is scarce: much of the premise of the report is that it's hard to get access, and that anyone known to be giving testimony will be at risk of harm.
What you are doing is interpreting based on the report, and on other evidence - but the discussion earlier and elsewhere in this thread is that the UN report itself goes against the genocide claim, and that people just don't read it. But it seems to me, if one is to simply read it, it's clear the UN believes there were, and probably still are, serious and systematic human rights violations against the Uighurs.
As to 'genocide' as a term, I do think it's fashionable - a buzz word - like 'terrorism', often bandied around when the author wants people to feel the thing is truly serious and unpardonable, but not always with good care as to the meaning. Hence it gets often argued about with respect to various events, even in cases when the main facts of the event is mostly undisputed.
Funny how in the age of information we get daily videos of Palestinian children being bombed, but after seven years there's not much in the way of actual demonstrable evidence other than anonymous reports. Fucking hell, what's the racial divide in imprisoned population in the USA, with actually demonstrable systematic racially motivated police murders, and where's the UN report on that.