Please don’t put any hate comments against the developers of lemmy or against the person who posted this.

I am also unhappy about what the main lemmy instance is doing.

What are your thoughts?

  • nikifa
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    3 years ago

    You are aware that this is just about semantics? It’s not about if those crimes against humanity that some call genocide are happening, it is if those crimes against humanity should be called genocide or differently. Stop gaslighing.

    “The U.S. State Department’s Office of the Legal Advisor concluded earlier this year that China’s mass imprisonment and forced labor of ethnic Uighurs in Xinjiang amounts to crimes against humanity—but there was insufficient evidence to prove genocide,…”

    Some more quote from the article:

    “Secretary Blinken and I have made clear that genocide has been committed against the Uyghurs in Xinjiang,”

    “I have determined that the People’s Republic of China is committing genocide and crimes against humanity in Xinjiang, China, targeting Uyghur Muslims and members of other ethnic and religious minority groups,”

    “For example, the torture, rape and sexual violence committed against Uyghurs likely constitute genocide ‘by causing serious bodily and mental harm’—the second type of genocide recognized by the Convention,

    “More than 1 million Uighurs have been detained in reeducation camps, and many have reportedly been subjected to forced labor and sterilization. China has committed numerous crimes listed in the convention as acts of genocide, including the prevention of births and infliction of bodily or mental harm on members of a group and the compulsory separation of children from their communities, according to human rights groups.”

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      3 years ago

      What I’m aware of is that there is no credible evidence of any sort of genocide happening in Xinjiang. The millions of Uyghurs being supposedly imprisoned story is based on two highly dubious “studies.”. CHRD states that it interviewed dozens of ethnic Uyghurs in the course of its study, but their enormous estimate was ultimately based on interviews with exactly eight Uyghur individuals. Based on this absurdly small sample of research subjects in an area whose total population is 20 million, CHRD “extrapolated estimates” that “at least 10% of villagers […] are being detained in re-education detention camps, and 20% are being forced to attend day/evening re-education camps in the villages or townships, totaling 30% in both types of camps.” Furthermore, it doesn’t even make sense from logistics perspective. You’d need a detention city the size of San Francisco to detain one million Uighurs.

      Practically all the stories we see about China trace back to Adrian Zenz is a far right fundamentalist nutcase and not a reliable source for any sort of information. The fact that he’s the primary source for practically every article in western media demonstrates precisely what I’m talking about when I say that coverage is divorced from reality.

      Zenz is a born-again Christian who lectures at the European School of Culture and Theology. This anodyne-sounding campus is actually the German base of Columbia International University, a US-based evangelical Christian seminary which considers the “Bible to be the ultimate foundation and the final truth in every aspect of our lives,” and whose mission is to “educate people from a biblical worldview to impact the nations with the message of Christ.”

      Zenz’s work on China is inspired by this biblical worldview, as he recently explained in an interview with the Wall Street Journal. “I feel very clearly led by God to do this,” he said. “I can put it that way. I’m not afraid to say that. With Xinjiang, things really changed. It became like a mission, or a ministry.”.

      Along with his “mission” against China, heavenly guidance has apparently prompted Zenz to denounce homosexuality, gender equality, and the banning of physical punishment against children as threats to Christianity.

      Zenz outlined these views in a book he co-authored in 2012, titled Worthy to Escape: Why All Believers Will Not Be Raptured Before the Tribulation. In the tome, Zenz discussed the return of Jesus Christ, the coming wrath of God, and the rise of the Antichrist.

      The fact that this nutcase is being paraded as a credible researcher on the subject is absolutely surreal, and it’s clear that the methodology of his “research” doesn’t pass any kind of muster when examined closely.

      It’s also worth noting that there is a political angle around the narrative around Xinjiang. For example, here’s George Bush’s chief of staff openly saying that US wants to destabilize the region, and NED recently admitting to funding Uyghur separatism for the past 16 years on their own official Twitter page. An ex-CIA operative details US operations radicalizing and training terrorists in the region in this book. Here’s an excerpt:

      Throughout the 1990s, hundreds of Uyghurs were transported to Afghanistan by the CIA for training in guerilla warfare by the mujahideen. When they returned to Xinjiang, they formed the East Turkistan Islamic Movement and came under Catli’s expert direction. Graham Fuller, CIA superspy, offered this explanation for radicalizing the Chinese Muslims:

      The policy of guiding the evolution of Islam and of helping them [Muslims] against our adversaries worked marvelously well in Afghanistan and against the Red Army. The doctrines can still be used to destabilize what remains of Russian power, and especially to counter Chinese influence in Central Asia.

      Furthermore, a recent joint research report on Xinjiang from multiple academic institutions in Italy states that U.S. is exploiting this issue seeking geopolitical benefits in the name of human rights.

      Anybody who still peddles Xinjiang genocide narrative at this point is either utterly ignorant or is willfully spreading misinformation.

      • nikifa
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        3 years ago

        What I’m aware of is that there is no credible evidence of any sort of genocide happening in Xinjiang.

        Why is it always the same rhetorical methods you (are you ML?) people use?

        Telling someone they are wrong, and they just need to read a bit more into it. Then they read a bit more into it, from the source you linked and notice that your entire argument is nothing but manipulative but they anyway use the arguments from the very source you linked as a means to show you how pointless your comment was…and then, like nearly always, people like you will then argue: no, no, all false: read this very long thread.

        I did read some threads on that subject from some MLs already. They all had one thing in common:

        forced labor is actually something good in this case. But look this is an ideological debate. You think it’s good, I think it’s bad. There’s no point debating that I should change my value system.

        • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          3 years ago

          You haven’t addressed a single point that I made, and now you’ve shifted from talking about genocide to forced labor which nobody here is defending. You’re clearly not interested in having a good faith discussion here.

          Have a good day.

          • nikifa
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            12
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            3 years ago

            You haven’t addressed a single point that I made

            I did. I addressed your original point. Then you wanted to talk about something else and I said, no, I’m not going to follow you into this rabbit hole, let’s first stick to the original point. If anytime someone makes an argument that makes your argument become logical inconsistent, you start to distract with something else, no point following you into the rabbit hole. Because all you want is to win, but I don’t gonna join your rules.

            here just so you don’t miss it out, here’s how I respond to your original point: https://lemmy.ml/post/78808/comment/74761

            • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              9
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              3 years ago

              No, you literally didn’t address any of my points. I explained that the source for your claims is not credible. I provided the context of what’s terrorism in Xinjiang and US involvement. I’ve also provided an independent report from Italy stating that US claims are politically motivated. You addressed none of that, and then shifted your argument. You are a troll.

              • nikifa
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                10
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                edit-2
                3 years ago

                I explained that the source for your claims is not credible

                I used YOUR source that YOU used for YOUR claim. Without you using it as a source, I would have never used it as such.

                I ONLY used it as a means to proof the manipulative character of your argumentation. Me not following your rhetoric lead, is just me not joining your gaslighting.

                • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  arrow-down
                  9
                  ·
                  3 years ago

                  My sources don’t say what you seem to think they say. Be specific regarding what it is you think my source says that supports your point. It’s pretty hilarious that once confronted with your nonsense you’re screeching about gaslighting.

              • nikifa
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                8
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                edit-2
                3 years ago

                fine, so let’s make it a circle.

                you and your original point that links to this only source that I used within this discourse:

                Even US state department denies the Uyghur genocide. Give it a rest already.

                me:

                You are aware that this is just about semantics? It’s not about if those crimes against humanity that some call genocide are happening, it is if those crimes against humanity should be called genocide or differently. Stop gaslighing.

                [then quotes from the source that you used to suggest that genocide is non-existential]

                “The U.S. State Department’s Office of the Legal Advisor concluded earlier this year that China’s mass imprisonment and forced labor of ethnic Uighurs in Xinjiang amounts to crimes against humanity—but there was insufficient evidence to prove genocide,…”

                Some more quote from the article:

                “Secretary Blinken and I have made clear that genocide has been committed against the Uyghurs in Xinjiang,”

                “I have determined that the People’s Republic of China is committing genocide and crimes against humanity in Xinjiang, China, targeting Uyghur Muslims and members of other ethnic and religious minority groups,”

                “For example, the torture, rape and sexual violence committed against Uyghurs likely constitute genocide ‘by causing serious bodily and mental harm’—the second type of genocide recognized by the Convention,

                “More than 1 million Uighurs have been detained in reeducation camps, and many have reportedly been subjected to forced labor and sterilization. China has committed numerous crimes listed in the convention as acts of genocide, including the prevention of births and infliction of bodily or mental harm on members of a group and the compulsory separation of children from their communities, according to human rights groups.”

                • nikifa
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  3 years ago

                  Again, I’m only making those point to show how your original point has been very missleading. I’m not saying that this is a credible source or something it’s just a source you used for your claim so I picked it up.

                  • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    6
                    arrow-down
                    7
                    ·
                    3 years ago

                    My original point was not misleading, and I provided lots of sources to support it in my follow up comment. You continue to ignore them and to make false statements.

                • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  arrow-down
                  7
                  ·
                  3 years ago

                  you and your original point that links to this only source that I used within this discourse:

                  My original link was to show that even state department lawyers in the country pushing the genocide narrative aren’t willing to call it such. Then I provided many more links that contradict the things you’ve quoted that you conveniently ignore here. Stop trolling.

      • nikifa
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        3 years ago

        xD. I get the Joke @TheAnonymouseJoker. Hope you wont get to much downovtes by those not understanding the actual joke. xD Because this might not be obvious to others reading here I give a short explanation:

        It’s a common practice by tankies and of those who come at their defense, to make some claim/question about “shit lib” or CIA, and it doesn’t matter if it fits the current argument or not. Usually some conspiracy follow after that.

        The joke here is to make a pun out of that behavior, by injecting that “CIA” claim at a moment it just doesn’t servers well.

        And here’s why: Someone tried to gaslight an political opponent by linking to an article that they claim to be about “Even US state department denies the Uyghur genocide”. So all I did is to quote some parts of the text, as a means to break the gaslighting spell. And now, the source that was original used to prove that that genocide did not happen, if used by a non-tankie it is CIA propaganda shit libs believe in. And because this art of debate is so absurd, it creates some laughter for some. On the other hand it is also very anoying, because you can’t have any serious logical consistent debate with anyone who argues like that.