Yeah, right? AOC is a bad ass until her party is suddenly unfavorable because some of them but not her aren’t supporting Gaza hard enough. But unsurprisingly, none of these people ever complain about Uyghur genocide—the other Muslims.
It’s easy for Jill to be hard on this topic because she knows the presidency is out of her reach. But AOC is still in play, and sadly—in the actual world we live in—she has to play the game to win.
It’s ironic to me that you people can acknowledge that Jill Stein is just virtue signaling from the side lines because it costs her nothing. She’s not actually spending political capital on something that has any chance of happening. She’s just paying it lip service.
You understand this. That’s good.
But then in the same breath, you applaud AOC for saber rattling to pack the supreme court and other ideas that are impossible without a super majority. Which only served to make Biden look weak and disenfranchise progressive voters.
#HRC51 | Draft resolution A/HRC/51/L.6 on holding a debate on the situation of human rights in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of #China, was REJECTED.
That’s not what that means. That’s not what any of that means. And you know it. Why such bad faith arguments? If your argument were rational and logical then the genocide in Gaza isn’t happening either. Because there’s large groups of people that don’t really care about it. Probably even large groups of Muslims who have other larger going concerns than it.
Last month the United States, Britain and other western countries objected to a visit by the United Nations counterterrorism chief to Xinjiang, concerned the visit would validate China’s argument that it was tackling terrorism.
I won’t, but I’ll try to refrain from commenting on it in your communities. (And yes, I’m familiar with the Convention’s definition of genocide and have taken it into account.)
You are using the people claiming there is a genocide as the source for the claim.
That’s typically how investigations work… There’s an accusation, and then an investigation to find evidence that supports the claim. They aren’t using people as a source for the claim, they’re using the evidence the people gathered.
You on the other hand seem to be focused on who gathered the information instead of what they gathered.
Welcomes** the outcomes of the visit conducted by the General Secretariat’s delegation upon invitation from the People’s Republic of China; commends the efforts of the People’s Republic of China in providing care to its Muslim citizens; and looks forward to further cooperation between the OIC and the People’s Republic of China.
This is anecdotal evidence from a political organization that has a well established history of ignoring the plight of specific Islamic ethnic minorities, including the Kurds in Syria and Turkey, the Ahwaz in Iran, the Hazaras in Afghanistan, the ‘Al-Akhdam’ in Yemen, and the Berbers in Algeria.
Over 50+ UN member states (mostly Muslim-majority nations)
Again, anecdotal evidence which does not detail the accusations, nor how their experience contradicts that accusation.
The World Bank sent a team to investigate in 2019 and found that, “The review did not substantiate the allegations.”
Using this as “evidence” is just academically dishonest. The “team” was a single bank manager, and the “investigation’s” scope was solely to insure that a 50m dollar loan for 3 different schools were not being used to commit crimes against humanity.
The bank claimed that the specific schools they investigated did not substantiate the allegations, however they found enough to decide they wanted to minimize the project.
“In light of the risks associated with the partner schools, which are widely dispersed and difficult to monitor, the scope and footprint of the project is being reduced. Specifically, the project component that involves the partner schools in Xinjiang is being closed.”
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
I think you are forgetting the accusations of the population control of an ethnic minority. “The 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which lists birth prevention targeting an ethnic group as one act that could qualify as genocide.”
Comparative Analysis: The War on Terror
Again, a logical fallacy. Just because America has participated in genocide does not mean that China cannot also participate in genocide or crimes against humanity.
Who is driving the Uyghur genocide narrative
Another logical fallacy… You are attacking the man, not the evidence or argument.
He relies heavily on limited and questionable data sources, particularly from anonymous and unverified Uyghur sources, coming up with estimates based on assumptions which are not supported by concrete evidence.
The vast majority of the evidence he’s gathered for his peer reviewed study are gathered directly from public data released by the Chinese government. There have also been some data from a leaked cable, which have been validated by multiple investigative bodies of journalists across the world.
As materialists, we should always look first to the economic base for insight into issues occurring in the superstructure. The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is a massive Chinese infrastructure development project that aims to build economic corridors, ports, highways, railways, and other infrastructure projects across Asia, Africa, Europe, and the Middle East. Xinjiang is a key region for this project.
This is a biased interpretation of materialism. A similarly biased claim based on materialism would be that the Belt and Roads initiative motivated china to ethnically cleanse a region vital to the initiative.
On a personal note, I don’t think the lable of genocide is really important. What is important is that an ethnic minority is being abused by a State. And while there is a lot of misinformation and politicing surrounding the topic, there’s still an alarming amount of data that suggest China is forcibly assimilating an ethnic minority group.
I mean, I could make the exact same garbage argument about you denying the Canadian genocide of the Flemish, which I just made up. Myanmar & Sudan aren’t even germane to the issue, so what’s the point of this diversion?
Yeah, right? AOC is a bad ass until her party is suddenly unfavorable because some of them but not her aren’t supporting Gaza hard enough. But unsurprisingly, none of these people ever complain about Uyghur genocide—the other Muslims.
It’s easy for Jill to be hard on this topic because she knows the presidency is out of her reach. But AOC is still in play, and sadly—in the actual world we live in—she has to play the game to win.
It’s ironic to me that you people can acknowledge that Jill Stein is just virtue signaling from the side lines because it costs her nothing. She’s not actually spending political capital on something that has any chance of happening. She’s just paying it lip service.
You understand this. That’s good.
But then in the same breath, you applaud AOC for saber rattling to pack the supreme court and other ideas that are impossible without a super majority. Which only served to make Biden look weak and disenfranchise progressive voters.
And look how that turned out. Biden left. Now there is actually a shot at beating Trump.
I consider that a success.
You know who else doesn’t complain about it? Other Muslims, because they know it’s bullshit.
https://twitter.com/un_hrc/status/1578003299827171330
That’s not what that means. That’s not what any of that means. And you know it. Why such bad faith arguments? If your argument were rational and logical then the genocide in Gaza isn’t happening either. Because there’s large groups of people that don’t really care about it. Probably even large groups of Muslims who have other larger going concerns than it.
If China really didn’t have anything to hide then they or any other superpower would be willing to allow independent un escorted investigators and journalists and to see the conditions.
It was the United States that blocked that UN visit: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-usa-rights/u-s-germany-slam-china-at-u-n-security-council-over-xinjiang-diplomats-idUSKCN1TX2YZ/
Delegates from Muslim countries did visit. From the US’ own propaganda outlet: Arab League Visits China’s Xinjiang Region, Rejects Uyghur Genocide
Speaking of rationality & logic, that sentence is sheer nonsense.
Removed by mod
Best of luck with your censorship efforts.
Me, talking about real genocide.
You, denying genocide.
You, suggesting I’m censoring the right to deny genocide.
Me, still talking about real genocide.
I will indeed do that.
Removed by mod
I won’t, but I’ll try to refrain from commenting on it in your communities. (And yes, I’m familiar with the Convention’s definition of genocide and have taken it into account.)
Removed by mod
What about the Rohingya in Myanmar, or Sudan? Are those propaganda too? Or do they not qualify because it doesn’t fit your narrative?
Removed by mod
So you can’t say you’re for the Palestinians when you’re actively willfully ignoring all other genocides.
I’m not ignoring them, Im not the one trying to create a strawman.
Like you saying, the Uyghur genocide is US propaganda.
Sorry, but calling someone out on their strawmaning is misinfo/trolling, apparently. I don’t make the rules 🤷
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
That’s typically how investigations work… There’s an accusation, and then an investigation to find evidence that supports the claim. They aren’t using people as a source for the claim, they’re using the evidence the people gathered.
You on the other hand seem to be focused on who gathered the information instead of what they gathered.
This is anecdotal evidence from a political organization that has a well established history of ignoring the plight of specific Islamic ethnic minorities, including the Kurds in Syria and Turkey, the Ahwaz in Iran, the Hazaras in Afghanistan, the ‘Al-Akhdam’ in Yemen, and the Berbers in Algeria.
Again, anecdotal evidence which does not detail the accusations, nor how their experience contradicts that accusation.
Using this as “evidence” is just academically dishonest. The “team” was a single bank manager, and the “investigation’s” scope was solely to insure that a 50m dollar loan for 3 different schools were not being used to commit crimes against humanity.
The bank claimed that the specific schools they investigated did not substantiate the allegations, however they found enough to decide they wanted to minimize the project.
“In light of the risks associated with the partner schools, which are widely dispersed and difficult to monitor, the scope and footprint of the project is being reduced. Specifically, the project component that involves the partner schools in Xinjiang is being closed.”
I think you are forgetting the accusations of the population control of an ethnic minority. “The 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which lists birth prevention targeting an ethnic group as one act that could qualify as genocide.”
Again, a logical fallacy. Just because America has participated in genocide does not mean that China cannot also participate in genocide or crimes against humanity.
Another logical fallacy… You are attacking the man, not the evidence or argument.
The vast majority of the evidence he’s gathered for his peer reviewed study are gathered directly from public data released by the Chinese government. There have also been some data from a leaked cable, which have been validated by multiple investigative bodies of journalists across the world.
This is a biased interpretation of materialism. A similarly biased claim based on materialism would be that the Belt and Roads initiative motivated china to ethnically cleanse a region vital to the initiative.
On a personal note, I don’t think the lable of genocide is really important. What is important is that an ethnic minority is being abused by a State. And while there is a lot of misinformation and politicing surrounding the topic, there’s still an alarming amount of data that suggest China is forcibly assimilating an ethnic minority group.
I mean, I could make the exact same garbage argument about you denying the Canadian genocide of the Flemish, which I just made up. Myanmar & Sudan aren’t even germane to the issue, so what’s the point of this diversion?
So you acknowledge that you’re disregarding them as genocides?
No. The only person who brought them up was you, and for some reason you’re still doing it.
Is this some attempt at, “Have you stopped beating your wife?”
Removed by mod