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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This is an assumption on your part.
I still am, it looks to me that again China's aim is to deprogram Western attempts to radicalize Muslim populations in Western China.
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.
But why? This wasn't part of the discussion.
They are euphemistic because the language used is trying to downplay the gravity of it.
They don't have to be western attempts. Even if they would be, how they are doing and justifying it is still very problematic.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You can open the scope of a discussion, that is totally allowed.
This is still an assumption on your part.
Yet they are, and what do you know of what they're doing and justifying it beyond sources from an anti-communist evangelical?
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?
You don't open the scope of a discussion by shifting the focus to topics that are completely irrelevant to the discussion.
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.
Why do you keep bringing someone in the discussion who has not been part or even influence of anything I have said?
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.
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.
And once again you are trying to change the topic to incorrect reporting about the situation. I give up.
I'm not trying to change the topic. I'm trying to address the inaccuracies of your argument.