Why are you linking an actual propaganda thinktank as an example as of Uyghur Genocide?
You could link any source, but you link one that is staffed by people who's careers have been purely to lie about American's enemies and push American interests?? I hope you're a little sharper than that and you're just linking that because you hope other people will swallow anything.
"HEY GUYS THIS ORGANIZATION THAT IS PAID TO TELL ME THAT CHINA IS BAD, GET THIS, SAYS CHINA IS BAD!!"
The sources cited are in large part Adrian Zenz and articles citing zenz. Radio free Asia shows up as well. How are these good sources?
Not to mention that Wikipedia is known to have a huge right wing bias and a well-known Nazi problem
I don't trust Chinese or Russian media either, I employ a healthy level of scepticism towards any media.
Is there any way I can convince you China is sterilizing and reeducating massive numbers of people in interment camps against their will? It seems like you've just said everything is untrustworthy.
Yes. If you can interact with and debunk the sources I've provided you and if you can provide first-hand sources such as official government papers detailing the CPCs sterilisation plans for Uyghur women, detailing how they plan to forcibly sterilize Uyghur women in order to eradicate their population.
This would be comical, since the Uyghurs are one of the fastest growing populations in china. So somehow they would both be performing sterilisations and still having the population grow. Someone must've messed up.
Now is there any way I can convince you to interact with the sources provided.
What government? It seems like the website you cited disregarded sources because they were from governments. Do you need Chinese government documents specifically?
Yes. Just as I would need us government papers if I were to prove the us government is deliberately committing a genocide. Now what can I do to make you interact with the sources?
Great, so you admit that all you have are the sources previously provided and the inherent flaws they contain We're operating from a point of agreement, then! We do not have strong evidence for the claims being made.
my dude, just because you can scour the internet for 20-30 articles that support your psy-op, while out right dismissing anything even tangentially related with main stream press as biased, doesn't mean you have a point. It only means you've successfully created a bubble around you. Get outa here.
We don't outright dismiss them you dip. We engage with your sources and show why they're unreliable or non-factual. You're the one handwaving sources away and refusing to engage any further. Talk about a bubble around you.
The fact of the matter is that if a genocide was happening there would be evidence of it, but there isn’t. If anything on the order of what’s alleged in these sorts of threads were happening it wouldn’t even be possible to hide it. There would be tens of thousands of refugees flooding into neighboring countries at the very least. Instead, you can literally go walk around Xinjiang and see Uyghur people happily living their lives, or if you don’t want to do that you could watch any of hundreds of videos of other people doing that. Every Muslim majority country in the world sides with China on this issue, and only the US and it’s lackeys (countries famous for their deep concern about the rights of Muslims) are making hay about it.
I don’t immediately discard anything from western sources, but I do give them appropriate scrutiny, and I don’t take baseless allegations from them without the appropriate level of the verifiable evidence as gospel, especially when they have clear geopolitical motivations for their claims. They’ve lied far too many times to be extended the benefit of the doubt.
Literally no one is quoting the DPRK as an authority on things other than the question of "what is the DPRK's official line?" and mundane questions of policy and economic growth.
But Hexbear mostly deals with liberal rags, it just does so with some level of cynicism.
There is evidence for it, you just claim that it is all a fabrication. Just one I found after seconds of searching. Have fun debunking over 60k accounts of mistreatment. https://shahit.biz/eng/
I just flipped through all 60,000 of them real quick and I gotta say, looks fake and made up. Since it only took you seconds to decide that this was bulletproof evidence of genocide, it only took me a few seconds to determine its fake.
I want you to think critically about this one. What people point to is an uptick in IUD insertions.
We have seen what sterilization compaigns in other countries look like, such as forced hysterectomies in the US and chemical castration in Israel. IUDs are birth control, they don't sterilize the patient. An appropriately-trained doctor can safely remove one in just a few minutes and I don't think you even need equipment to do so!
Literally even if we were imagining China was forcing women to get IUDs, which it isn't, that's not sterilizing them! Those women would not be sterilized!
But this is part of the endless layers of warping and misrepresentation that make things go from "uptick in IUD insertions"
to Zenz exaggerating the rate by a literal order of magnitude
to hack journalists doing circular citations of Associated Press, etc. making sinister insinuations
to people who don't follow this very closely saying "sterilizing"
Oh, I agree that in a vacuum that would be the more important thing, but I forgot to return to my first point: Given that this would be an extraordinarily poor way of doing forced sterilization and we know that from the many campaigns that we have decent documentation of, in the absence of solid evidence, concluding that this was "a forced sterilization campaign" does not seem reasonable. Like, in terms of everything from resilience to material waste, even just doing tube tyings (which effectively result in genuine sterilization in 1/4 of cases) would be much more effective. It's like saying they are trying to kill Uyghurs by promoting juggling in the hopes that they will bonk themselves in the head and stumble into traffic, it just isn't what such campaigns have ever looked like in practice.
While I think nay accusation of genocide should be taken seriously and investigated, I do not think we should accept these claims without basis, and we have to accept that despite several years of allegations, no proof has been provided. Both the US state department and the CIA have had to acknowledge that there is no genocide going on in Xinjiang. Here's a carrd with mainly Western sources debunking the claims of genocide https://xinjiangahr.carrd.co/
Both the US state department and the CIA have had to acknowledge that there is no genocide going on in Xinjiang
That's very misleading. They say they have insufficient proof to say it is racially motivated. (Which is a prerequisite for genocide) But there is certainly great oppression happening there.
Both organisations have acknowledged that there is at the worst a cultural genocide going on - ie. An erasure of culture.
One can wonder how such a genocide is carried out, when the Uyghur language is still taught, Uyghur culture and language is still freely distributed and promoted and Uyghur people are a prominent part of the Chinese popular culture.
Your claim leads me to believe you did not engage with the sources provided to you.
Forced sterilisation (birth rates are down 60% vs about 10% for the rest of China) and forceful reeducation? They don't care about the language as much as the shared cultural identity separate from China.
Birth rates were already much lower in the rest of China, did the Han do a genocide on themselves first lol or is declining birth rate the norm in a country with massively improved economic conditions and development, and has that begun to affect the more rural regions of China?
No, that isn’t a clarification. You’re not understanding that the birth rates in the rest of China were already much lower prior to the 10% decrease. The Uighur population has been growing even as the Han population has leveled out, because the Han already had lower birth rates for decades. The Uighur were exempted from the one child policy as well. So yeah, the rest decreased 10%, there was less room to decrease in the first place because birth rates were already very low!
Did you even look at the carrd? If you're not gonna engage with the sources, then it's pretty clear you're not arguing in goog faith and there's no reason for this discussion to continue
I'm trying to talk in good faith, but I don't have 10 hours to read about it. I've only researched about 1 or 2 hours. But I'm definitely not just taking your website at face value.
If you want to call the discussion off, I'm fine with that. This thread has given an adequate sample of hexbear ideology.
Hey thanks for chiming in! I didn't notice it was the same user. It's pretty sad someone can be this resilient to challenging their own worldview. If they truly were so secure in their knowledge they would interact with the sources provided, yet they fail to do so. At some point you can only assume it's because they're afraid at some level.
It's really disappointing
Hey I'm glad to hear you point out the good faith stuff. I'm interacting with a few of your site buddies and I gotta say, there's a whole lot of bad faith stuff going on, so I'm sorta defensive. I've provided sources a few times now and just get mocked or called a propagandist for it. Not your fault though, so it is unfair to direct the frustration at you.
I don't expect you to read it all in one go - there's a lot of stuff. We don't have to continue the conversation right now, we can pick it up when you're ready. I will say that I am not the one who gathered those sources, so beyond doing so e fact-checking and investigation on my own on these claims, I am not the most well-educated on the subject. We have a news mega, which is a great place for these exact discussions, which I would highly recommend. I can try to answer any questions you might have, though I think users like @SeventyTwoTrillion@hexbear.net or @Alaskaball@hexbear.net would be much better for any question that isn't super basic. I'll do my best though, and I'm certain there's a lot I could learn. Again for any real in-depth discussion I'd recommend the news mega.
Edit: nevermind you're the asshole troll that couldnt read a single source given to you in that thread before. Fuck me for assuming good faith and fuck you
I'm Chinese and literally grew up with Uyghurs downstairs in Hubei, they and the Hui family around the block were the only ones with more than 1 kid.
If you're referring to something Adrian Zenz said about 80% of new IUDs being sold in Xinjiang, he misread a decimal point 328,475 IUDs in Xinjiang out of 3,774,318. 8.7% of IUDs placed in China were in Xinjiang.
News quoted his 80% figure before he had to retract it, but it's already in the back of people's minds that China's forcibly sterilizing Uyghurs.
Being pro Russia, genocide denialism, authoritarianism, being hateful of ideas that don't conform to their worldview, racism (just not towards the same people), the list goes on and on.
Being anti-nato does not mean we are pro-russia.
Specifically which genocide is being denied?
Define "authoritarianism".
Yes we are hateful towards racism, sexism, ableism, transphobia, homophobia and fascism.
What racism is being done by hexbear users? The mod team takes such things very seriously
Hey, I'm a Hexbear user and I really think you have the wrong impression of what our site is. Idk if you're open to reconsidering or if you're just trying to get a few antagonistic words in but I'll tell you my experience as a long time user:
Being pro Russia
Our site isn't pro-russia. We just want the war to come to a swift end without any further bloodshed. Some people take offense to that because we don't think the best way to do that is to send more guns, tanks, planes, dollars, etc into the warzone. That benefits no one except the arms manufacturers and the money lenders. Not regular people on either side.
genocide denialism
The only thing I can think of that you would be referring to is the "holodomor" or something similar that happened in the USSR. It's not that we deny that many people did die in these horrible tragedies or that there wasn't Soviet government involvement in some of them but that these very real events are being distorted for political reasons by people who want to paint the USSR in a certain, wholly bad, light. As communists (or anarchists), we try to be very open to criticism and new ways of thinking about or doing things but not when the intent is to do historical revisionism to make the people who liberated the concentration camps and ended the crimes of Nazism seem like Nazis under a different name.
Authoritarianism
Well, I guess this is true in a way. As revolutionists, we do seek to change the system by establishing a new authority with the capability to make this change. But have you ever noticed how the current system maintains and perpetuates itself? Sure, you can vote (and we don't seek to abolish that!), but when that fails and working-class people take to the streets seeking change, why is it that people with guns and tear gas and riot shields try to stop them and maybe even imprison them? It's not that leftists are uniquely "authoritarian" but that we want to use that authority for representing regular, working-class people and to bring about a better world where that authority isn't necessary anymore. Our anarchist users probably have a somewhat different take on this but one of them will have to talk about it lol
being hateful of ideas that don't conform to their worldview
Sure, there are a lot of ideas that we hate. But isn't that everyone? I hope we could all agree on hating things like fascism, racism, sexism, transphobia, etc etc. Our users probably feel more strongly about that than most people lol but that's just cuz a lot of us have been targets of those kinds of ideas. Other than stuff like that though... this site has been one of the most accepting places on the Internet in my experience. Sure, we argue a lot (sometimes too zealously lol), but just cuz we care a lot about getting things right. On our site, we don't have downvotes to encourage users to actually challenge bad ideas and voice their opinion instead of just feeling satisfied having slightly influenced an algorithm.
racism (just not towards the same people)
This just hasn't been my experience and I know most of our users would agree. Racism gets swiftly removed on Hexbear and lots of people replying challenging it. Do you have any examples? This has just been so contrary to my time on the site. Unless you mean jokes about white people but I hope I don't have to explain why that's not a problem lol
Anyway, I just want our instances and our users to exist together in peace. I know we have very "different" ideas from what is considered the mainstream in the west and on most of the English-speaking internet but I know our presence on the "fediverse" can be a positive thing and that we can get along. I hope this helps you to understand our site a bit better.
The whole "we want to end the war" argument just reeks. It stinks of russian propaganda. Russia started the war. They invaded Ukraine. Would you have the same viewpoint if the US was the invader? I've seen that comment several times and it kinda starts sounding like a red fascist dogwhistle
It was a low-key civil war, make no mistake about it.
Your government doesn't just allow armed, organised (largely ultranationalist) paramilitary groups to conduct ethnically-motivated attacks on its own soil without their tacit approval, especially not when those same paramilitary groups tended to get absorbed into the state military forces later on.
This isn't the wild west were talking here.
Fuck, if a protest action in your own country can deploy the pointy end of the state against you immediately then the civil war against the easternmost part of Ukraine could have had a police/military response within days rather than leaving it to play out over literal years.
Do you think "anti-white racism" is even remotely as bad as other forms of racism? Or even a problem at all? White people already have all the privileges bestowed upon them by a fundamentally white-supremacist society. Making fun of this concept on our tiny social media website isn't hurting anyone.
Do you think “anti-white racism” is even remotely as bad as other forms of racism?
In the vast majority of cases, no, not even close.
Or even a problem at all?
It's 100% a problem, for multiple reasons. First and foremost, it's racist, so it's already inherently a problem for that reason alone. But it's also a problem because your [hexbear's] moralistic self-righteousness combined with your [hexbear's] obvious hypocrisy gives people opposed to your ideals that much more ammunition (and of course you don't care about that, but that itself is also part of the hexbear problem).
And the worst part is that, as with so many of hexbear's problems, there's no reason for it. It's such an easy problem to fix, and would give an instance like hexbear that supposedly prides itself on its inclusivity such a huge boost in credibility. If you want to set yourselves up as morally unimpeachable, then be morally unimpeachable! Set an actual example, and be leaders that bring people together, not because of compromising your beliefs, but by actually being consistent, steadfast, and intellectually honest about the beliefs you already have.
And sure, I get the importance of having a place where you can feel comfortable and meme hyperbolically about problems you feel are important, and about the people who don't agree with you. That seems to be the direction that most hexbears seem to want to go.
But, in the end, it is racist, and it is disingenuous to promote yourselves as this bastion of anti-racism while encouraging literal racism on your instance and then act all surprised pikachu face when you get called out on it.
It's 100% a problem, for multiple reasons. First and foremost, it's racist, so it's already inherently a problem for that reason alone.
Nothing is "inherently" anything. What makes, for example, anti-black (as contrary to anti-white) racism bad in spaces like this? It furthers the psychological harm caused by the racist material conditions of white-supremacist society and normalizes these conditions. Racist rhetoric is part of the superstructural justification for these conditions that makes the oppressor feel superior and the oppressed feel inferior and like they deserve it. This contradiction does not exist for white people and that is why anti-white racism effectively does not exist, except maybe beyond a limited level in inter-personal relationships. It might make individual white people feel a little bad but it has no material backing.
But it's also a problem because your [hexbear's] moralistic self-righteousness
I'm not the one pearl-clutching over anti-white racism.
combined with your [hexbear's] obvious hypocrisy gives people opposed to your ideals that much more ammunition (and of course you don't care about that, but that itself is also part of the hexbear problem).
This issue doesn't really give anyone "more ammunition" against us. Part of the reason we do keep these kinds of jokes around (besides being funny) is because it tends to out reactionaries (like how you are being right now).
And the worst part is that, as with so many of hexbear's problems, there's no reason for it. It's such an easy problem to fix, and would give an instance like hexbear that supposedly prides itself on its inclusivity such a huge boost in credibility.
I'm pretty sure most of the people making "cracker" jokes on here are white themselves. I don't think Hexbear is known as the "anti-white" instance lol
And sure, I get the importance of having a place where you can feel comfortable and meme hyperbolically about problems you feel are important, and about the people who don't agree with you. That seems to be the direction that most hexbears seem to want to go.
Yeah, I mean that's pretty much what Hexbear is. I don't think anyone here would want to be "morally-unimpeachable leaders" or even to what end that would be.
Would you also say that black people can't be racist towards other black people? 'cuz some people in Rwanda would love to have a discussion with you I'm sure! Heck, Haitians would love to talk about Dominicans with you!
Oh so the definition of being white varies now? People are dermofluid or something? "I'm white skinned but I'm not white."
Also it's still happening today but you would never admit that a white French Canadian or an Irish can be the victim of racism because their skin color somehow makes them immune to it or some shit.
I can't tell how serious you're being but I read a really good book on this subject- The History of White People
The TL;DR on that is that whiteness is a social category, not an objective observation of human beings and their differences. For most of American history, as an example, Anglo-Saxons, Dutch/Low Germans and Scandinavians were considered a superior race to the 'alpine' and 'mediterranean' races of High Germans, Spaniards, and Italians. Irish weren't Anglo-Saxon, they were Celtic and were thus considered inferior. The racism people observe when they see 'Irish need not apply' signs or slurs directed at Italians in the 1800s were because those people were not considered 'white' at the time. It's an over-simplification, but these groups needed to be incorporated into the dominant group before they would be given the treatment we generally think is normal for white people.
Which is very jarring to us, since obviously Irish and Italians and Bavarian Germans are 'white'. But it literally does vary, and the entire purpose of the category is to render people inside of it superior by virtue of belonging to it, it's a category that exists to express supremacy.
"white" is a concept made up to justify slavery and white supremacy. you are actually hitting on something really important, the definition of being white HAS varied widely in history. when the concept of whiteness was first being developed, it was in order to justify categorizing people as white or non-white, and then the eugenics movement ran away with that concept to promote racial supremacy- not racial identity, but racial supremacy. so "white" as a category did indeed refer to specifically condoned peoples with supposed genetic, moral, intellectual superiority. and the definition of "white" did indeed vary then as well as now. irish, italian, slav, spanish, jews were all once distinctly non-white by the definition of "whites" at one point. the definition has changed since then because it has always been a non-scientific concept designed to identify "us" from "them" and justify the subjugation of whoever was considered non-white at the time.
Oh so the definition of being white varies now? People are dermofluid or something? "I'm white skinned but I'm not white."
The definition of being white, like all definitions, can indeed vary based on time and place, yes. Whether someone is white "enough" to be included in the category of "white people" is not an objective fact and will change from culture to culture, from time to time, and even from one individual perspective to the next.
Racial categories in Europe were more complex than they generally are today, especially in America. It's difficult to maintain distinctions in race between different European nationalities when everyone's immigrating to the same place and having kids together, so over time these subtle distinctions have dropped off somewhat in favor of the simpler categories of "white" and "non-white." But some of these distinctions still remain, for instance, many people who identify as "white nationalists" or even "white supremacists" also hate Jews, including Jewish people with white skin. Hitler's infamous 14 words declare that a future must be secured "for our white children," yet clearly he did not consider white-skinned Jewish people to be included in that definition.
As absurd as it may be to say that someone can have white skin but not be considered white, it can happen. The reason it doesn't make sense is because race is, to a large degree, something that is socially constructed and nonsensical.
No one here is pro Russia lol. We just recognize that the war in Ukraine is an intractable meat grinder, and working for peace is more productive than continuing the conflict in an effort to further enrich War Contractors.
name literally a single one or quit spreading this bullshit.
Genocide denial.
Denounce the US genocide against Martians right now or you're a genocide denier.
Which genocide is being denied by hexbear users?
I had some conversations here. They were saying that China isn't doing anything to the Uyghurs in Xinjiang. That seems like genocide denial to me.
Why are you linking an actual propaganda thinktank as an example as of Uyghur Genocide?
You could link any source, but you link one that is staffed by people who's careers have been purely to lie about American's enemies and push American interests?? I hope you're a little sharper than that and you're just linking that because you hope other people will swallow anything.
"HEY GUYS THIS ORGANIZATION THAT IS PAID TO TELL ME THAT CHINA IS BAD, GET THIS, SAYS CHINA IS BAD!!"
Come on bud.
You want the wiki?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_genocide
Wikipedia? Unironically? You must be trolling
It isn't the government, and the sources cited within are very good. Would you only accept China or Russia's word for it? Or are western sources okay?
The sources cited are in large part Adrian Zenz and articles citing zenz. Radio free Asia shows up as well. How are these good sources?
Not to mention that Wikipedia is known to have a huge right wing bias and a well-known Nazi problem
I don't trust Chinese or Russian media either, I employ a healthy level of scepticism towards any media.
Is there any way I can convince you China is sterilizing and reeducating massive numbers of people in interment camps against their will? It seems like you've just said everything is untrustworthy.
Yes. If you can interact with and debunk the sources I've provided you and if you can provide first-hand sources such as official government papers detailing the CPCs sterilisation plans for Uyghur women, detailing how they plan to forcibly sterilize Uyghur women in order to eradicate their population.
This would be comical, since the Uyghurs are one of the fastest growing populations in china. So somehow they would both be performing sterilisations and still having the population grow. Someone must've messed up.
Now is there any way I can convince you to interact with the sources provided.
What government? It seems like the website you cited disregarded sources because they were from governments. Do you need Chinese government documents specifically?
Yes. Just as I would need us government papers if I were to prove the us government is deliberately committing a genocide. Now what can I do to make you interact with the sources?
No problem buddy, let just quickly break into that one chinese government archive where they got all their nasty stuff, should be easy ;^)
Great, so you admit that all you have are the sources previously provided and the inherent flaws they contain
We're operating from a point of agreement, then! We do not have strong evidence for the claims being made.
my dude, just because you can scour the internet for 20-30 articles that support your psy-op, while out right dismissing anything even tangentially related with main stream press as biased, doesn't mean you have a point. It only means you've successfully created a bubble around you. Get outa here.
We don't outright dismiss them you dip. We engage with your sources and show why they're unreliable or non-factual. You're the one handwaving sources away and refusing to engage any further. Talk about a bubble around you.
The fact of the matter is that if a genocide was happening there would be evidence of it, but there isn’t. If anything on the order of what’s alleged in these sorts of threads were happening it wouldn’t even be possible to hide it. There would be tens of thousands of refugees flooding into neighboring countries at the very least. Instead, you can literally go walk around Xinjiang and see Uyghur people happily living their lives, or if you don’t want to do that you could watch any of hundreds of videos of other people doing that. Every Muslim majority country in the world sides with China on this issue, and only the US and it’s lackeys (countries famous for their deep concern about the rights of Muslims) are making hay about it.
Except all the evidence your ignoring because it's from western sources
Western sources never make shit up. I heard that Iraqis are throwing babies out of incubators and hiding WMDs.
So you can throw out all western sources out of hand?
No, you can’t. I said they never make anything up, you’re actually morally obliged to believe anything they say.
But you were obviously being sarcastic, so I thought you are advocating the opposite.
I don’t immediately discard anything from western sources, but I do give them appropriate scrutiny, and I don’t take baseless allegations from them without the appropriate level of the verifiable evidence as gospel, especially when they have clear geopolitical motivations for their claims. They’ve lied far too many times to be extended the benefit of the doubt.
Fair enough. I hope you apply the same reasoning to other sources like Russian, North Korean, or Chinese sources?
I do!
Literally no one is quoting the DPRK as an authority on things other than the question of "what is the DPRK's official line?" and mundane questions of policy and economic growth.
But Hexbear mostly deals with liberal rags, it just does so with some level of cynicism.
You trust them on their economic growth figures? Those seem the most exaggerated documents I can think of.
Have you ever even looked at them?
There is evidence for it, you just claim that it is all a fabrication. Just one I found after seconds of searching. Have fun debunking over 60k accounts of mistreatment. https://shahit.biz/eng/
I just flipped through all 60,000 of them real quick and I gotta say, looks fake and made up. Since it only took you seconds to decide that this was bulletproof evidence of genocide, it only took me a few seconds to determine its fake.
I want you to think critically about this one. What people point to is an uptick in IUD insertions.
We have seen what sterilization compaigns in other countries look like, such as forced hysterectomies in the US and chemical castration in Israel. IUDs are birth control, they don't sterilize the patient. An appropriately-trained doctor can safely remove one in just a few minutes and I don't think you even need equipment to do so!
Literally even if we were imagining China was forcing women to get IUDs, which it isn't, that's not sterilizing them! Those women would not be sterilized!
But this is part of the endless layers of warping and misrepresentation that make things go from "uptick in IUD insertions"
to Zenz exaggerating the rate by a literal order of magnitude
to hack journalists doing circular citations of Associated Press, etc. making sinister insinuations
to people who don't follow this very closely saying "sterilizing"
So temporarily sterilisation? The important question would be whether it is forced.
Oh, I agree that in a vacuum that would be the more important thing, but I forgot to return to my first point: Given that this would be an extraordinarily poor way of doing forced sterilization and we know that from the many campaigns that we have decent documentation of, in the absence of solid evidence, concluding that this was "a forced sterilization campaign" does not seem reasonable. Like, in terms of everything from resilience to material waste, even just doing tube tyings (which effectively result in genuine sterilization in 1/4 of cases) would be much more effective. It's like saying they are trying to kill Uyghurs by promoting juggling in the hopes that they will bonk themselves in the head and stumble into traffic, it just isn't what such campaigns have ever looked like in practice.
Don't bother, it's the same asshole from yesterday that was obtuse despite getting everything handed to them. They're just sealioning.
While I think nay accusation of genocide should be taken seriously and investigated, I do not think we should accept these claims without basis, and we have to accept that despite several years of allegations, no proof has been provided. Both the US state department and the CIA have had to acknowledge that there is no genocide going on in Xinjiang. Here's a carrd with mainly Western sources debunking the claims of genocide https://xinjiangahr.carrd.co/
That's very misleading. They say they have insufficient proof to say it is racially motivated. (Which is a prerequisite for genocide) But there is certainly great oppression happening there.
Both organisations have acknowledged that there is at the worst a cultural genocide going on - ie. An erasure of culture.
One can wonder how such a genocide is carried out, when the Uyghur language is still taught, Uyghur culture and language is still freely distributed and promoted and Uyghur people are a prominent part of the Chinese popular culture.
Your claim leads me to believe you did not engage with the sources provided to you.
Forced sterilisation (birth rates are down 60% vs about 10% for the rest of China) and forceful reeducation? They don't care about the language as much as the shared cultural identity separate from China.
Birth rates were already much lower in the rest of China, did the Han do a genocide on themselves first lol or is declining birth rate the norm in a country with massively improved economic conditions and development, and has that begun to affect the more rural regions of China?
That's why I clarified that there was a approx. 10% across the county vs a 60% decrease in that area.
No, that isn’t a clarification. You’re not understanding that the birth rates in the rest of China were already much lower prior to the 10% decrease. The Uighur population has been growing even as the Han population has leveled out, because the Han already had lower birth rates for decades. The Uighur were exempted from the one child policy as well. So yeah, the rest decreased 10%, there was less room to decrease in the first place because birth rates were already very low!
Did you even look at the carrd? If you're not gonna engage with the sources, then it's pretty clear you're not arguing in goog faith and there's no reason for this discussion to continue
I'm trying to talk in good faith, but I don't have 10 hours to read about it. I've only researched about 1 or 2 hours. But I'm definitely not just taking your website at face value.
If you want to call the discussion off, I'm fine with that. This thread has given an adequate sample of hexbear ideology.
deleted by creator
Hey thanks for chiming in! I didn't notice it was the same user. It's pretty sad someone can be this resilient to challenging their own worldview. If they truly were so secure in their knowledge they would interact with the sources provided, yet they fail to do so. At some point you can only assume it's because they're afraid at some level.
It's really disappointing
Hey I'm glad to hear you point out the good faith stuff. I'm interacting with a few of your site buddies and I gotta say, there's a whole lot of bad faith stuff going on, so I'm sorta defensive. I've provided sources a few times now and just get mocked or called a propagandist for it. Not your fault though, so it is unfair to direct the frustration at you.I don't expect you to read it all in one go - there's a lot of stuff. We don't have to continue the conversation right now, we can pick it up when you're ready. I will say that I am not the one who gathered those sources, so beyond doing so e fact-checking and investigation on my own on these claims, I am not the most well-educated on the subject. We have a news mega, which is a great place for these exact discussions, which I would highly recommend. I can try to answer any questions you might have, though I think users like @SeventyTwoTrillion@hexbear.net or @Alaskaball@hexbear.net would be much better for any question that isn't super basic. I'll do my best though, and I'm certain there's a lot I could learn. Again for any real in-depth discussion I'd recommend the news mega.Edit: nevermind you're the asshole troll that couldnt read a single source given to you in that thread before. Fuck me for assuming good faith and fuck you
deleted by creator
Lmao thanks for the heads up - what a pathetic dickhead
lol
Why would the CPC, in the same breath, exempt the Uyghurs from the One Child Policy but also force sterilization?
Maybe? Then they can look like they're not limiting the population while doing it covertly.
I'm Chinese and literally grew up with Uyghurs downstairs in Hubei, they and the Hui family around the block were the only ones with more than 1 kid.
If you're referring to something Adrian Zenz said about 80% of new IUDs being sold in Xinjiang, he misread a decimal point 328,475 IUDs in Xinjiang out of 3,774,318. 8.7% of IUDs placed in China were in Xinjiang.
News quoted his 80% figure before he had to retract it, but it's already in the back of people's minds that China's forcibly sterilizing Uyghurs.
Hell yeah I'm a genocide denier.
I deny white genocide without any remorse 😎
So you believe in White Genocide?
Being pro Russia, genocide denialism, authoritarianism, being hateful of ideas that don't conform to their worldview, racism (just not towards the same people), the list goes on and on.
Being anti-nato does not mean we are pro-russia.
Specifically which genocide is being denied?
Define "authoritarianism".
Yes we are hateful towards racism, sexism, ableism, transphobia, homophobia and fascism.
What racism is being done by hexbear users? The mod team takes such things very seriously
Hey, I'm a Hexbear user and I really think you have the wrong impression of what our site is. Idk if you're open to reconsidering or if you're just trying to get a few antagonistic words in but I'll tell you my experience as a long time user:
Our site isn't pro-russia. We just want the war to come to a swift end without any further bloodshed. Some people take offense to that because we don't think the best way to do that is to send more guns, tanks, planes, dollars, etc into the warzone. That benefits no one except the arms manufacturers and the money lenders. Not regular people on either side.
The only thing I can think of that you would be referring to is the "holodomor" or something similar that happened in the USSR. It's not that we deny that many people did die in these horrible tragedies or that there wasn't Soviet government involvement in some of them but that these very real events are being distorted for political reasons by people who want to paint the USSR in a certain, wholly bad, light. As communists (or anarchists), we try to be very open to criticism and new ways of thinking about or doing things but not when the intent is to do historical revisionism to make the people who liberated the concentration camps and ended the crimes of Nazism seem like Nazis under a different name.
Well, I guess this is true in a way. As revolutionists, we do seek to change the system by establishing a new authority with the capability to make this change. But have you ever noticed how the current system maintains and perpetuates itself? Sure, you can vote (and we don't seek to abolish that!), but when that fails and working-class people take to the streets seeking change, why is it that people with guns and tear gas and riot shields try to stop them and maybe even imprison them? It's not that leftists are uniquely "authoritarian" but that we want to use that authority for representing regular, working-class people and to bring about a better world where that authority isn't necessary anymore. Our anarchist users probably have a somewhat different take on this but one of them will have to talk about it lol
Sure, there are a lot of ideas that we hate. But isn't that everyone? I hope we could all agree on hating things like fascism, racism, sexism, transphobia, etc etc. Our users probably feel more strongly about that than most people lol but that's just cuz a lot of us have been targets of those kinds of ideas. Other than stuff like that though... this site has been one of the most accepting places on the Internet in my experience. Sure, we argue a lot (sometimes too zealously lol), but just cuz we care a lot about getting things right. On our site, we don't have downvotes to encourage users to actually challenge bad ideas and voice their opinion instead of just feeling satisfied having slightly influenced an algorithm.
This just hasn't been my experience and I know most of our users would agree. Racism gets swiftly removed on Hexbear and lots of people replying challenging it. Do you have any examples? This has just been so contrary to my time on the site. Unless you mean jokes about white people but I hope I don't have to explain why that's not a problem lol
Anyway, I just want our instances and our users to exist together in peace. I know we have very "different" ideas from what is considered the mainstream in the west and on most of the English-speaking internet but I know our presence on the "fediverse" can be a positive thing and that we can get along. I hope this helps you to understand our site a bit better.
The whole "we want to end the war" argument just reeks. It stinks of russian propaganda. Russia started the war. They invaded Ukraine. Would you have the same viewpoint if the US was the invader? I've seen that comment several times and it kinda starts sounding like a red fascist dogwhistle
The war did not start in 2022, your analysis of what has been happening before the invasion needs to go back before that.
Ok
I guess instead of "war" I should have said "conflict" btw
It was a low-key civil war, make no mistake about it.
Your government doesn't just allow armed, organised (largely ultranationalist) paramilitary groups to conduct ethnically-motivated attacks on its own soil without their tacit approval, especially not when those same paramilitary groups tended to get absorbed into the state military forces later on.
This isn't the wild west were talking here.
Fuck, if a protest action in your own country can deploy the pointy end of the state against you immediately then the civil war against the easternmost part of Ukraine could have had a police/military response within days rather than leaving it to play out over literal years.
No sure, I get where you're coming from, but for the purposes of the other poster I think it was best to adjust my language.
At the time time, it's also best for the purposes of the other poster to reply with your perspective as well haha
dude history has a context
🤡🤡🤡
Do you think "anti-white racism" is even remotely as bad as other forms of racism? Or even a problem at all? White people already have all the privileges bestowed upon them by a fundamentally white-supremacist society. Making fun of this concept on our tiny social media website isn't hurting anyone.
In the vast majority of cases, no, not even close.
It's 100% a problem, for multiple reasons. First and foremost, it's racist, so it's already inherently a problem for that reason alone. But it's also a problem because your [hexbear's] moralistic self-righteousness combined with your [hexbear's] obvious hypocrisy gives people opposed to your ideals that much more ammunition (and of course you don't care about that, but that itself is also part of the hexbear problem).
And the worst part is that, as with so many of hexbear's problems, there's no reason for it. It's such an easy problem to fix, and would give an instance like hexbear that supposedly prides itself on its inclusivity such a huge boost in credibility. If you want to set yourselves up as morally unimpeachable, then be morally unimpeachable! Set an actual example, and be leaders that bring people together, not because of compromising your beliefs, but by actually being consistent, steadfast, and intellectually honest about the beliefs you already have.
And sure, I get the importance of having a place where you can feel comfortable and meme hyperbolically about problems you feel are important, and about the people who don't agree with you. That seems to be the direction that most hexbears seem to want to go.
But, in the end, it is racist, and it is disingenuous to promote yourselves as this bastion of anti-racism while encouraging literal racism on your instance and then act all surprised pikachu face when you get called out on it.
Nothing is "inherently" anything. What makes, for example, anti-black (as contrary to anti-white) racism bad in spaces like this? It furthers the psychological harm caused by the racist material conditions of white-supremacist society and normalizes these conditions. Racist rhetoric is part of the superstructural justification for these conditions that makes the oppressor feel superior and the oppressed feel inferior and like they deserve it. This contradiction does not exist for white people and that is why anti-white racism effectively does not exist, except maybe beyond a limited level in inter-personal relationships. It might make individual white people feel a little bad but it has no material backing.
I'm not the one pearl-clutching over anti-white racism.
This issue doesn't really give anyone "more ammunition" against us. Part of the reason we do keep these kinds of jokes around (besides being funny) is because it tends to out reactionaries (like how you are being right now).
I'm pretty sure most of the people making "cracker" jokes on here are white themselves. I don't think Hexbear is known as the "anti-white" instance lol
Yeah, I mean that's pretty much what Hexbear is. I don't think anyone here would want to be "morally-unimpeachable leaders" or even to what end that would be.
i don't care about being racist toward white 'people'
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
"Up yours, woke moralists! 😠 We'll see who cancels who."
Can't be racist against white people
Really? Go tell that to Jews... Or the Irish... Or Acadians (heck, french Canadians in general)... The list goes on and on...
You mean all the people that weren't classified as "white" as they suffered persecution by white people? Okay
Man, that goalpost must be fucking light for you guys to move it around that often!
Were discussing the persecution of white people, yet you do not think it is relevant that these people were not considered white by their persecutors?
Would you also say that black people can't be racist towards other black people? 'cuz some people in Rwanda would love to have a discussion with you I'm sure! Heck, Haitians would love to talk about Dominicans with you!
I would say it would depend on the structural conditions and who holds power over whom
can't be racist against white people
"goes on to name people crackers excluded from the 'white' definition in order to colonize them"
Oh so the definition of being white varies now? People are dermofluid or something? "I'm white skinned but I'm not white."
Also it's still happening today but you would never admit that a white French Canadian or an Irish can be the victim of racism because their skin color somehow makes them immune to it or some shit.
I can't tell how serious you're being but I read a really good book on this subject- The History of White People
The TL;DR on that is that whiteness is a social category, not an objective observation of human beings and their differences. For most of American history, as an example, Anglo-Saxons, Dutch/Low Germans and Scandinavians were considered a superior race to the 'alpine' and 'mediterranean' races of High Germans, Spaniards, and Italians. Irish weren't Anglo-Saxon, they were Celtic and were thus considered inferior. The racism people observe when they see 'Irish need not apply' signs or slurs directed at Italians in the 1800s were because those people were not considered 'white' at the time. It's an over-simplification, but these groups needed to be incorporated into the dominant group before they would be given the treatment we generally think is normal for white people.
Which is very jarring to us, since obviously Irish and Italians and Bavarian Germans are 'white'. But it literally does vary, and the entire purpose of the category is to render people inside of it superior by virtue of belonging to it, it's a category that exists to express supremacy.
"white" is a concept made up to justify slavery and white supremacy. you are actually hitting on something really important, the definition of being white HAS varied widely in history. when the concept of whiteness was first being developed, it was in order to justify categorizing people as white or non-white, and then the eugenics movement ran away with that concept to promote racial supremacy- not racial identity, but racial supremacy. so "white" as a category did indeed refer to specifically condoned peoples with supposed genetic, moral, intellectual superiority. and the definition of "white" did indeed vary then as well as now. irish, italian, slav, spanish, jews were all once distinctly non-white by the definition of "whites" at one point. the definition has changed since then because it has always been a non-scientific concept designed to identify "us" from "them" and justify the subjugation of whoever was considered non-white at the time.
Racism is inherently vague, because race is made up. There are no differences in any way between a white and black person, or any other race.
The definition of being white, like all definitions, can indeed vary based on time and place, yes. Whether someone is white "enough" to be included in the category of "white people" is not an objective fact and will change from culture to culture, from time to time, and even from one individual perspective to the next.
Racial categories in Europe were more complex than they generally are today, especially in America. It's difficult to maintain distinctions in race between different European nationalities when everyone's immigrating to the same place and having kids together, so over time these subtle distinctions have dropped off somewhat in favor of the simpler categories of "white" and "non-white." But some of these distinctions still remain, for instance, many people who identify as "white nationalists" or even "white supremacists" also hate Jews, including Jewish people with white skin. Hitler's infamous 14 words declare that a future must be secured "for our white children," yet clearly he did not consider white-skinned Jewish people to be included in that definition.
As absurd as it may be to say that someone can have white skin but not be considered white, it can happen. The reason it doesn't make sense is because race is, to a large degree, something that is socially constructed and nonsensical.
Imagine considering Xi Jinping Winnie the Pooh memes to be racist, while simultaneously arguing that you can't be racist against white people.
And for good measure, considering the use of the word "crazy" to be an offensive term against the mentally ill.
Those things are crossing the line. But overt racism is fine as long as it's self-deprecating.
cry about it, cracker
Keep defending your racist users, Adolf.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
No one here is pro Russia lol. We just recognize that the war in Ukraine is an intractable meat grinder, and working for peace is more productive than continuing the conflict in an effort to further enrich War Contractors.
Woah woah woah, calm down there chief.
I have that same opinion having seen hexbear posts for the past 6 months. It's not invalid because it makes you upset.