The majority of UN countries are on their side, Muslim majority countries included.
And claiming “U.N. body rejects debate on China’s treatment of Uyghur Muslims in blow to West” means a majority of countries on their side is just dishonest. China has a massive economy and is able to put political pressure on plenty of nations in the UN.
This would be like saying America has never pressured another nation into voting for something in the UN.
I think even the countries that abstained are on their side.
They’re obviously being pressured to be on that side but all of the UNSC veto holders do that. The veto power shouldn’t exist because this is what happens. Veto holders are allowed to bully whoever they want with no meaningful consequences.
even the countries that abstained are on their side.
What do you mean by on their side? Are you saying they don’t believe human rights violations happened, are you saying they are just politically aligned with China, or that worried about political backlash from China?
They’re not willing to stand up to an obvious bully and push for further investigation. Closer to your second and third statements than the first. With the third being the most likely.
I do understand how my first comment could be misunderstood now though.
linking wikipedia is providing an enormous list of sources and summaries
at this point, the uighur issue is the bullshit asymmetry principal: it’s been proven time and time again and anyone asking for “sources” isn’t arguing in good faith: they’re relying on the fact that asking for sources takes thousands of times less energy than countering
so that’s what you get: a massive list of pre-prepared sources
*edit: and if you’d have actually read the article you posted, the UNHRC didn’t vote against the motion because they thought there was nothing to investigate: they voted against it to “avoid alienating china”
If China is authoritarian and censors all information that makes China look bad, and spreads propaganda to other countries that those Governments are spreading propaganda to make China look bad and China isn’t actually bad, does it matter what is motivating the US to say “China Bad” when they objectively are?
I would be sympathetic if the Uyghur stuff was true.
This is denial, plain and simple.
It is not everyone else’s job to provide this ignoramus sources on the facts of the matter when we are all communicating on the internet where those facts can be found. Especially when no source can possibly be good enough when “they haven’t seen anything convincing yet” even though everyone but China and their allies are saying the same damn thing, including people who have fled China, and they are only referencing US sources.
I don’t think that being uninformed is denying genocide and I think it’s antisocial, divisive, and not beneficial to any of us to treat it as if it is.
I don’t think deleting the parent comment so context is lost is good practice. I think it is antisocial, divisive, and not beneficial to any one who wants to keep up with the conversation.
But you did it anyways. Like how OP explicitly denied a genocide is happening.
I deleted it before I had any responses because I regretted posting it, and yknow what, I’m allowed to do that.
No, you deleted it after you had responses hence why it got responses. You then edited your other comment with this:
As some people have already pointed out, it’s far more useful to pont out why there is not much information available.
To somebody seeing this from the outside and not being aware of the issue, I learned a lot from some of the comments in this thread, but I learned absolutely fucking nothing from that comment linking the wiki page for genocide denial. This is why I don’t fucking like that response. Sure that guy may be sealioning and acting in bad faith, but the comment is public and is for everyone seeing it just as much as it’s for the person it’s responding to.
After I replied.
It is obvious what you are doing and now that I pointed it out for others coming by I have no need to interact with you further.
Why would organisations who aren’t scared to criticise the west and have a really good track record like anmety intl and HRW make the suffering of the Uyghur people up?
It’s really fucking hard for me to understand why many people have so much trouble accepting both China/Russia and the West are heavily unethical. There’s no magic place that does everything ethically, and I don’t know why we’re refusing to acknowledge the cultural genocide of a large population, leading to extreme suffering for hunderds of thousands, because it criticises one country. It doesn’t matter who did it, it absolutely is awful, and we shouldn’t be denying it. Denying it only compounds the extreme suffering the population faces.
It’s so weird to me that people who defend China’s treatment of Uyghurs turn it into a US vs China thing. You can look through my recent history and find me saying that Biden, Harris, and everyone in Congress who clapped for Netanyahu have committed genocide and can rot in hell. Trump, of course, is even worse. This isn’t a “muh both sides bad enlightened centrism” thing because this isn’t a “sides” issue to begin with. Three of the four major superpowers on Earth right now are authoritarian hellholes, and the EU is on its way to joining them with its shift toward neo-Nazism.
Oh boy, genocide denial.
deleted by creator
And claiming “U.N. body rejects debate on China’s treatment of Uyghur Muslims in blow to West” means a majority of countries on their side is just dishonest. China has a massive economy and is able to put political pressure on plenty of nations in the UN.
This would be like saying America has never pressured another nation into voting for something in the UN.
I think even the countries that abstained are on their side.
They’re obviously being pressured to be on that side but all of the UNSC veto holders do that. The veto power shouldn’t exist because this is what happens. Veto holders are allowed to bully whoever they want with no meaningful consequences.
What do you mean by on their side? Are you saying they don’t believe human rights violations happened, are you saying they are just politically aligned with China, or that worried about political backlash from China?
They’re not willing to stand up to an obvious bully and push for further investigation. Closer to your second and third statements than the first. With the third being the most likely.
I do understand how my first comment could be misunderstood now though.
linking wikipedia is providing an enormous list of sources and summaries
at this point, the uighur issue is the bullshit asymmetry principal: it’s been proven time and time again and anyone asking for “sources” isn’t arguing in good faith: they’re relying on the fact that asking for sources takes thousands of times less energy than countering
so that’s what you get: a massive list of pre-prepared sources
*edit: and if you’d have actually read the article you posted, the UNHRC didn’t vote against the motion because they thought there was nothing to investigate: they voted against it to “avoid alienating china”
deleted by creator
What they were doing was textbook sealioning. This information is right there for anyone to find and has been for years.
deleted by creator
If China is authoritarian and censors all information that makes China look bad, and spreads propaganda to other countries that those Governments are spreading propaganda to make China look bad and China isn’t actually bad, does it matter what is motivating the US to say “China Bad” when they objectively are?
This is denial, plain and simple.
It is not everyone else’s job to provide this ignoramus sources on the facts of the matter when we are all communicating on the internet where those facts can be found. Especially when no source can possibly be good enough when “they haven’t seen anything convincing yet” even though everyone but China and their allies are saying the same damn thing, including people who have fled China, and they are only referencing US sources.
Let’s use some simple logic here, bub.
deleted by creator
I don’t think deleting the parent comment so context is lost is good practice. I think it is antisocial, divisive, and not beneficial to any one who wants to keep up with the conversation.
But you did it anyways. Like how OP explicitly denied a genocide is happening.
Both things happened, and that’s a fact.
deleted by creator
No, you deleted it after you had responses hence why it got responses. You then edited your other comment with this:
After I replied.
It is obvious what you are doing and now that I pointed it out for others coming by I have no need to interact with you further.
deleted by creator
Why would organisations who aren’t scared to criticise the west and have a really good track record like anmety intl and HRW make the suffering of the Uyghur people up?
It’s really fucking hard for me to understand why many people have so much trouble accepting both China/Russia and the West are heavily unethical. There’s no magic place that does everything ethically, and I don’t know why we’re refusing to acknowledge the cultural genocide of a large population, leading to extreme suffering for hunderds of thousands, because it criticises one country. It doesn’t matter who did it, it absolutely is awful, and we shouldn’t be denying it. Denying it only compounds the extreme suffering the population faces.
It’s so weird to me that people who defend China’s treatment of Uyghurs turn it into a US vs China thing. You can look through my recent history and find me saying that Biden, Harris, and everyone in Congress who clapped for Netanyahu have committed genocide and can rot in hell. Trump, of course, is even worse. This isn’t a “muh both sides bad enlightened centrism” thing because this isn’t a “sides” issue to begin with. Three of the four major superpowers on Earth right now are authoritarian hellholes, and the EU is on its way to joining them with its shift toward neo-Nazism.