watch this b4 commenting https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PGjSv3x0fuk

  • Corbyn [none/use name]
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    edit-2
    4 years ago

    Take a look at this, as it has hardly been secretive.

    What is this supposed to prove? Yes, the Chinese governments admits their existence (there is no way around it) and uses very euphemistic terms to describe them. You are saying that re-education and forced assimilation isn't happening but a quote from what you linked:

    [...] one shouldn’t underestimate the power of terrorist indoctrination, which they can only overcome by going to school, learning Chinese, and picking up technical skills

    The FAQ proceeds to compare going to school to seeking medical treatment — one may refuse to seek treatment thinking his/her condition isn’t severe, when in fact it is severe or might become severe in the future.

    Imprisoning millions, forcing them to learn Chinese and whatever "knowledge" they require to be allowed to leave, and separating families to "educate" the children in different prisons, is very much what you are denying. The Chinese government giving a euphemistic FAQ to children who can't reach their parents anymore does not make it less secretive.

    • gayhobbes [he/him]
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 years ago

      What is this supposed to prove?

      I mean it's mostly supposed to prove that the New York Times and other sources have vastly exaggerated or speculated on claims rather than investigating them, but okay.

      uses very euphemistic terms to describe them.

      This is an assumption on your part.

      You are saying that re-education and forced assimilation isn’t happening

      I still am, it looks to me that again China's aim is to deprogram Western attempts to radicalize Muslim populations in Western China.

      Imprisoning millions, forcing them to learn Chinese and whatever “knowledge” they require to be allowed to leave, and separating families to “educate” the children in different prisons, is very much what you are denying.

      That's a whole lot of scare quotes for something you're speculating on. You also didn't talk about Adrian Zenz at all, which is extremely relevant as that's been the West's primary source on this shit.

      • Corbyn [none/use name]
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        4 years ago

        I mean it’s mostly supposed to prove that the New York Times and other sources have vastly exaggerated or speculated on claims rather than investigating them, but okay.

        But why? This wasn't part of the discussion.

        This is an assumption on your part.

        They are euphemistic because the language used is trying to downplay the gravity of it.

        I still am, it looks to me that again China’s aim is to deprogram Western attempts to radicalize Muslim populations in Western China.

        They don't have to be western attempts. Even if they would be, how they are doing and justifying it is still very problematic.

        That’s a whole lot of scare quotes for something you’re speculating on.

        I am not speculating. That is what they are saying. They are saying that they have been indoctrinated and that it can be a long process to re-educate them. We are talking about a whole population here. The separation of families is also not speculation.

        You also didn’t talk about Adrian Zenz at all, which is extremely relevant as that’s been the West’s primary source on this shit.

        Please stop trying to force a discussion about some western narrative into it, as if this would add anything to the topic.

        • Dear_Occupant [he/him]
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          4 years ago

          Please stop trying to force a discussion about some western narrative into it, as if this would add anything to the topic.

          It's highly relevant to this discussion because the sources people are using to back up these claims include the New York Times, which was instrumental in legitimizing similarly unfounded claims about WMDs in Iraq. Claims of genocide fall into the same category as claims of impending attack: they both provide a casus belli to other countries. This is all war marketing.

          • Corbyn [none/use name]
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 years ago

            It’s highly relevant to this discussion because the sources people are using

            I didn't use it, nor did I argue anything based on the NYT. It is not relevant. If others do it is a whole other topic.

            • Dear_Occupant [he/him]
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              4 years ago

              We are not having this discussion in a vacuum, we are having it in the context of the US gearing up for hostilities, so the scope of a discussion about international relations is necessarily broader than what you or I may have have personally said.

              • Corbyn [none/use name]
                arrow-down
                7
                ·
                edit-2
                4 years ago

                No, we are not. I am talking about what we know China is doing, what they are admitting themselves directly. At no point did I bring in any western media reporting. Re-read my posts, this is a discussion about imprisoning people because a government has diagnosed them of having the wrong ideologies, and that we should not pretend that this is okay. Whether some journalists spread misinformation does not affect the reality of Uyghurs. If you want to criticise the media, do it, but I am not interested in it.

                If forcing the NYT into it has any relevance, then as evidence that people here seem to think that because the US is an evil imperialist power, we should defend China and ignore their wrongdoings. I am trying to look at what China does, not if there are more evil countries, as if this would relieve China of their crimes. Have some humanist ideals, and apply them to everyone equally, not based on how much you like or identify with a country, or you are falling in the same ideological traps as American imperialists do.

        • gayhobbes [he/him]
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          4 years ago

          But why? This wasn’t part of the discussion.

          You can open the scope of a discussion, that is totally allowed.

          They are euphemistic because the language used is trying to downplay the gravity of it.

          This is still an assumption on your part.

          They don’t have to be western attempts. Even if they would be, how they are doing and justifying it is still very problematic.

          Yet they are, and what do you know of what they're doing and justifying it beyond sources from an anti-communist evangelical?

          Please stop trying to force a discussion about some western narrative into it, as if this would add anything to the topic.

          Where do you get your sources on China? Are you in China? Are you of Chinese descent? Do you live among the Uyghurs? How do you know what's happening?

          • Corbyn [none/use name]
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            4 years ago

            You can open the scope of a discussion, that is totally allowed.

            You don't open the scope of a discussion by shifting the focus to topics that are completely irrelevant to the discussion.

            This is still an assumption on your part.

            I am "assuming" that the language used does not do separating families and forcing a large ethnic group to go into re-education camps justice? I don't see how you can deny the gravity of what this means to the people affected by it.

            Yet they are, and what do you know of what they’re doing and justifying it beyond sources from an anti-communist evangelical?

            Why do you keep bringing someone in the discussion who has not been part or even influence of anything I have said?

            Where do you get your sources on China? Are you in China? Are you of Chinese descent? Do you live among the Uyghurs? How do you know what’s happening?

            I have been arguing based on what we know for sure. Even the government has confirmed it. I would love to have more to go by, but it doesn't really exist.

            • gayhobbes [he/him]
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              4 years ago

              I have been arguing based on what we know for sure.

              I do not think you've been doing this at all. Take a look at this thread and tell me what you're still assuming after all that.

              • Corbyn [none/use name]
                arrow-down
                7
                ·
                4 years ago

                And once again you are trying to change the topic to incorrect reporting about the situation. I give up.

                • gayhobbes [he/him]
                  ·
                  4 years ago

                  I'm not trying to change the topic. I'm trying to address the inaccuracies of your argument.

    • SEACUE [they/them]
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      4 years ago

      I completely agree, tbh. I don't understand why people are defending this violation of human rights. Which it is, regardless if they're beating people or not. They're abducting people without cause and keeping them till they're ideologically indoctrinated. They admit this, even in the video OP linked. This is very obviously a vile control tactic. To defenders of this: I critically support you in your fight against American imperialism, and in your fight against capitalism, but to defend this is to violate your principles and I hope you come to realize that.

      • rlgan [any]
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 years ago

        What would be your solution to the problems of extremism, terrorism, separatism, poverty etc that are present in Xinjiang? I am not trying to be snarky, I am genuinely curious about what would be the better way to handle this.

        • SEACUE [they/them]
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          4 years ago

          I would simply not abduct people without cause. If people are doing a terrorism, I would arrest them. Simple as that.

          • rlgan [any]
            ·
            4 years ago

            Well that's probably the most lib take I have seen on this site so far.

            • SEACUE [they/them]
              ·
              4 years ago

              Well, what would you do if you were Xi? I'm sorry for offending you with that take, I'm not the most knowledgeable.

              • rlgan [any]
                ·
                4 years ago

                I don't have a better solution, but at least what the Chinese government is doing has a chance of working and improving the lives of the people of Xinjiang. What you are suggesting is doing nothing, let extremism keep spreading and with it terrorism and separatism. And for what, an irrational commitment to the protection of individual freedoms that don't really make anyone more free?

                It would be preferable if there was a way to educate people without having to force them to do it, which is why I was asking your opinion. But doing nothing is not a solution either.