You're right that focusing on Zenz isn't effective, but the rest of your post just talks about Zenz.
The effective arguments against the genocide narrative look something like this:
Plenty of Muslim-majority countries dispute the U.S. narrative about China -- am I supposed to believe that an openly-Islamophobic U.S. government is telling the truth while they're lying?
The U.S. has a long history of lying about bad things happening in non-white and/or non-capitalist countries to justify action against said countries. We saw this during Cold War I, why would it change in Cold War II?
If you want to call internment camps genocide but you're unwilling to call the millions of deaths we caused throughout War on Terror genocide, you might be a little biased.
Zenz is only useful if you start getting into individual pieces of evidence. You're not going to have a useful conversation about evidence if they're starting from the assumption that the U.S. narrative is true. You have to show that there's reason to doubt our side of the story first.
I would add to #2, that the US has an interest in creating tensions within China that would lead to destabilizing China and ultimately causing it to break apart. Pretty sure I've seen sources showing the US has focused these efforts on Xinjiang since the 70s.
His religious views are relevant to the issue because he connects the fall of global capitalism to the rise of the antichrist. If it is agreed that China poses a threat to global capitalism, then any claims of his against China must should be viewed with scrutiny because it would be to his interest to manipulate facts to discredit them on the world stage. But you're correct that this should be connected with examples of that manipulation and lack of academic rigor rather than standing on its own.
You're right that focusing on Zenz isn't effective, but the rest of your post just talks about Zenz.
The effective arguments against the genocide narrative look something like this:
Zenz is only useful if you start getting into individual pieces of evidence. You're not going to have a useful conversation about evidence if they're starting from the assumption that the U.S. narrative is true. You have to show that there's reason to doubt our side of the story first.
I would add to #2, that the US has an interest in creating tensions within China that would lead to destabilizing China and ultimately causing it to break apart. Pretty sure I've seen sources showing the US has focused these efforts on Xinjiang since the 70s.
Earlier with Tibet as well
deleted by creator
His religious views are relevant to the issue because he connects the fall of global capitalism to the rise of the antichrist. If it is agreed that China poses a threat to global capitalism, then any claims of his against China must should be viewed with scrutiny because it would be to his interest to manipulate facts to discredit them on the world stage. But you're correct that this should be connected with examples of that manipulation and lack of academic rigor rather than standing on its own.
deleted by creator