this post was submitted on 01 Sep 2023
200 points (89.7% liked)
sh.itjust.works Main Community
7732 readers
1 users here now
Home of the sh.itjust.works instance.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.