I already gave my sources on Xinjiang, so I won’t retread old ground.
The nordic countries thay have high scores on the IAHD index are a part of western imperialism. They subsidize their safety nets by plundering the surplus value of the south, and rely on institutions like the IMF and NATO to protect them and facilitate their plunder. China is not imperialist.
This is your argument? That this is allowed in a great example of Chinese socialism?
2022 report by the UN Human Rights Office (OHCHR) found that China’s arbitrary detention of Uyghurs and other predominantly Muslim minorities in Xinjiang may constitute “crimes against humanity,” citing credible evidence of torture, forced labor, and severe rights violations.
While the UN report did not formally label the actions as “genocide,” it highlighted evidence of coercive policies designed to suppress cultural and religious identity.
Key Findings of the UN Report:
Arbitrary Detention: The report confirmed that mass internment camps, termed “vocational training” by the Chinese government, functioned as centers for detention.
Torture and Abuse: Evidence was found of beatings, torture (including waterboarding), and sexual violence against detainees.
Coercive Labor: Evidence suggests a scope of forced labor, with detainees transferred to factories or high-security prisons.
Religious/Cultural Suppression: Policies aimed at “coercive Sinicization” forced individuals to abandon religious practices.
Brother. China sucks. The US sucks. Just get over it.
The US tried to foment division in China by funding and organizing Salafi terrorist into Xinjiang, and once its efforts failed, it made lemonade out of its lemon by concocting and promoting a genocide narrative.
The only countries pushing this narrative are the “always the same map” imperial core countries, which just so happen to be largely the same ones supporting Israel’s genocide.
Almost no predominantly-Muslim country buys the Uyghur genocide narrative, because they know it’s bullshit, because they talked to the Uyghurs themselves. https://twitter.com/un_hrc/status/1578003299827171330
#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.
In accordance with China’s affirmative action policies towards ethnic minorities, all non-Han ethnic groups were subject to different laws and were usually allowed to have two children in urban areas, and three or four in rural areas.
(e) Show me the forcible transfer of children from one group to another group
violent incidents in East Turkestan
I wonder where those Salafi terrorists came from? Oh right: the US, UK, and Israel organized, funded, and trained them, as they did Al Qaeda and the various flavors of ISIS/ISIL, including the “moderate rebels” that just took over Syria. The blueprint of regime change operationsHow regime change happens in the 21st century with your consent.
Relatedly, US shenanigans in Hong Kong five years ago and in Beijing in 1989 also sucked.
I’ve already asked another commenter this but it’s valid here too: Would you class the western oppression of dissent to be on the same level as that famous student protest in China?
Only someone misinformed about the 1989 protest and US/CIA/NED-orchestrated, murderously violent riot would ask this, which to be fair is 99% of Westerners.
Edit to add: YouTube took the original video down for “violating YouTube’s terms of service,” but I found a reploaded a copy, splitting it up into three pieces. This is why you don’t know what really happened, because Western corporate media don’t want you to know. They were reuploaded just today; who knows how long they’ll stay up.
[Chinese Intellectual’s founder] Liang [Heng] had come from his New York office, where he serves as the magazine’s foreign editor, to Washington Thursday and Friday to address the board of directors at the National Endowment for Democracy – a substantial financial backer of the magazine – to tell it what he knows, what he thinks and what will possibly happen.
After his arrival in the United States, he earned his master’s degree in literature from Columbia University and secured an initial $200,000 grant from the NED, a private corporation created in 1983 to “strengthen democratic efforts worldwide,” to start his magazine.
That is not to say [Gene] Sharp has not seen any action. In 1989, he jetted off to China to witness the uprising in Tiananmen Square. In the early 1990s, he sneaked into a Myanmar rebel camp at the invitation of Robert Helvey, a retired Army colonel who advised the opposition there. They met when Helvey was on a fellowship at Harvard; the military man thought the professor had ideas that could avoid war.
Holyy shit that’s a lot of reading. I got through a lot of it so far and honestly, I’m reaching a point where I don’t think I’m smart enough to have any real commentary. I will say the sources are pretty questionable. One of the sites you listed has a .cn address so it’s directly controlled by the Chinese government lol. Medium and YouTube and a website claiming to be an independent journalist…
This is probably a conversation for another time, but what if we’ve entered a period where no information I have or you have is plain fact? It’s increasingly likely. We could be both horribly wrong with no other way to prove anything except what is happening with the 5ft circle around us. It makes sense if most media available is controlled by two opposed governments trying to influence their people a certain way that neither have good intel.
It makes sense to me that a country attempting to unify itself in terms of language, economy, politics, etc. would be harsh and even persecute minority religions. It has happened everywhere in history. But it also makes sense the US would deploy destabilizing propaganda and assets into all foreign nations.
Anyways, I’m fine admitting this is beyond my paygrade as a socio-economic and political enthusiast.
I’ll concede on the idea that neither of us were there and both of us believe our sources are correct.
I don‘t expect you or anyone to turn an instant 180º away from a lifetime of understanding. It took me well over a decade, first because I had to look into most of it myself, and second because it took a lot of evidence for me to accept them and reject the many layers of unexamined priors I’d grown up with.
Another place to start, rather than diving head-first into the China question, is the history of propaganda, which developed starting in the early 20th century in the US.
Dave M. Van Zandt obtained a Communications Degree before pursuing a higher degree in the sciences. Dave currently works full time in the health care industry. Dave has spent more than 20 years as an arm chair researcher on media bias and its role in political influence.
The whole concept of the “left” or ”right“ “bias” being inversely correlated with factualness is garbage. These kinds of graphs, which try to convince us that centrism equals factualness, are garbage:
The core bias of corporate media is the bias of the capitalist class, but people like Van Zandt don’t seem to understand this.
But you’ve sparked an idea for an interesting project: use MBFC’s API to create one of these graphs from their own data. Doing a little googling, it seems that scripts and data dumps aren’t hard to come by.
No results found for site:mediabiasfactcheck.com "manufacturing consent".
I’ve seen The Grayzone debunk the New York Times’ lies many times, and yet:
Also, in what universe is the neoliberal, anti-labor NYT center-left? And if the Grayzone in the ultraviolet territory, where does that leave the explicitly Communist Monthly Review, outside of MBFC’s Overton window? Surprise, it’s to the right of it:
The first step is to understand the media, which Media Bias/Fact Check and the Ad Fontes Media* are never going to teach you. The only people who are taught it are those who get degrees in marketing, public relations, political science, history, and journalism; and even then only some of them.
The standards are part of RAND’s ongoing project on “truth decay”: a phenomenon that RAND researchers describe as “the diminishing role that facts, data, and analysis play in our political and civic discourse.”
None of it is a secret, though, and it can be learned.
Wow I’m discovering we’re more alike by the second. I’m certainly in my personal journey of discovering truth beneath the corporate fed slop. I unsubscribed to NYT in 2017.
I have thought for years that many people bounce their minds between the left and right extremes only to falsely convince themselves the middle must be the reasonable place to be when in fact the truth or ethics are on a different spectrum entirely.
I’m thankful my brain has a natural tendency to know logic and morality that aides my search, but you’re right. It’s questioning everything from the beginning just to have a starting picture. Propaganda from childhood forward. History written by the victors.
Manufactured consent is the hot topic amongst some of my friends at the moment. We’ve abandoned all “sides” in US politics searching for a solution to the ever strengthening tyranny of evil.
Thank you for sharing these sources and information. I’ll happily research further.
I’m very happy help if I can. I try to give people a leg-up so it doesn’t take them years & years like it took me.
Edit to add: China does have its problems/contradictions, which are fine to critique, but first one has to sift out the propaganda-fabricated problems from the real ones.
You asked an AI without even reading China’s response to the allegations? You just had an AI summarize the allegations alone, without reading China’s counter-evidence. I asked you to read the OHCHR report so you could understand the allegations, not as definitive evidence, which China’s response thoroughly debunks a large majority of it or contextualizes.
Sorry, I thought you or someone else had said the UN report confided it wasn’t genocide. So I went and found the UN report to point out what it did say. If that wasn’t you, I apologize. There are a lot of parallel conversations going on.
But still, wouldn’t the UN collective organization have more credibility than the individual accused nation when claiming their side of things?
“The man accused of says he didn’t do it. The group of investigators determined it was voluntary manslaughter…”
Since you want to discuss the details of the report and China’s response, I will look into both. Please hold.
The bulletpoints you listed do not mention anything consistent with actual genocide by either the UN or colloquial definitions. The UN report’s conclusion is that there were various types of abuse and repression but that there was no genocide.
What matters is the evidence. The UN is toothless and dominated by western interests, and the majority of muslim nations have come out in favor of China’s evidence over the UN.
I feel like this article explains it in a way that reveals a bit more of the harsh reality, but still supports your claim of Muslim nations’ support of China’s policies. It’s also from Medium.
I already gave my sources on Xinjiang, so I won’t retread old ground.
The nordic countries thay have high scores on the IAHD index are a part of western imperialism. They subsidize their safety nets by plundering the surplus value of the south, and rely on institutions like the IMF and NATO to protect them and facilitate their plunder. China is not imperialist.
This is your argument? That this is allowed in a great example of Chinese socialism?
2022 report by the UN Human Rights Office (OHCHR) found that China’s arbitrary detention of Uyghurs and other predominantly Muslim minorities in Xinjiang may constitute “crimes against humanity,” citing credible evidence of torture, forced labor, and severe rights violations.
While the UN report did not formally label the actions as “genocide,” it highlighted evidence of coercive policies designed to suppress cultural and religious identity.
Key Findings of the UN Report:
Brother. China sucks. The US sucks. Just get over it.
Brother, CIA shenanigans in Xinjiang sucked.
Previously:
Previously:
Relatedly, US shenanigans in Hong Kong five years ago and in Beijing in 1989 also sucked.
Previously:
Previously:
Edit to add: The link to images from Beijing is broken because Reddit has since censored that entire subreddit.
Holyy shit that’s a lot of reading. I got through a lot of it so far and honestly, I’m reaching a point where I don’t think I’m smart enough to have any real commentary. I will say the sources are pretty questionable. One of the sites you listed has a .cn address so it’s directly controlled by the Chinese government lol. Medium and YouTube and a website claiming to be an independent journalist…
This is probably a conversation for another time, but what if we’ve entered a period where no information I have or you have is plain fact? It’s increasingly likely. We could be both horribly wrong with no other way to prove anything except what is happening with the 5ft circle around us. It makes sense if most media available is controlled by two opposed governments trying to influence their people a certain way that neither have good intel.
It makes sense to me that a country attempting to unify itself in terms of language, economy, politics, etc. would be harsh and even persecute minority religions. It has happened everywhere in history. But it also makes sense the US would deploy destabilizing propaganda and assets into all foreign nations.
Anyways, I’m fine admitting this is beyond my paygrade as a socio-economic and political enthusiast.
I’ll concede on the idea that neither of us were there and both of us believe our sources are correct.
I don‘t expect you or anyone to turn an instant 180º away from a lifetime of understanding. It took me well over a decade, first because I had to look into most of it myself, and second because it took a lot of evidence for me to accept them and reject the many layers of unexamined priors I’d grown up with.
Another place to start, rather than diving head-first into the China question, is the history of propaganda, which developed starting in the early 20th century in the US.
Previously:
Previously:
Previously:
Wow I’m discovering we’re more alike by the second. I’m certainly in my personal journey of discovering truth beneath the corporate fed slop. I unsubscribed to NYT in 2017.
I have thought for years that many people bounce their minds between the left and right extremes only to falsely convince themselves the middle must be the reasonable place to be when in fact the truth or ethics are on a different spectrum entirely.
I’m thankful my brain has a natural tendency to know logic and morality that aides my search, but you’re right. It’s questioning everything from the beginning just to have a starting picture. Propaganda from childhood forward. History written by the victors.
Manufactured consent is the hot topic amongst some of my friends at the moment. We’ve abandoned all “sides” in US politics searching for a solution to the ever strengthening tyranny of evil.
Thank you for sharing these sources and information. I’ll happily research further.
Edit to add: China does have its problems/contradictions, which are fine to critique, but first one has to sift out the propaganda-fabricated problems from the real ones.
You asked an AI without even reading China’s response to the allegations? You just had an AI summarize the allegations alone, without reading China’s counter-evidence. I asked you to read the OHCHR report so you could understand the allegations, not as definitive evidence, which China’s response thoroughly debunks a large majority of it or contextualizes.
Plus, I’m not the one you were responding to here, I linked you Xinjiang: A Resource and Report Compilation.
Sorry, I thought you or someone else had said the UN report confided it wasn’t genocide. So I went and found the UN report to point out what it did say. If that wasn’t you, I apologize. There are a lot of parallel conversations going on.
But still, wouldn’t the UN collective organization have more credibility than the individual accused nation when claiming their side of things?
“The man accused of says he didn’t do it. The group of investigators determined it was voluntary manslaughter…”
Since you want to discuss the details of the report and China’s response, I will look into both. Please hold.
The bulletpoints you listed do not mention anything consistent with actual genocide by either the UN or colloquial definitions. The UN report’s conclusion is that there were various types of abuse and repression but that there was no genocide.
What matters is the evidence. The UN is toothless and dominated by western interests, and the majority of muslim nations have come out in favor of China’s evidence over the UN.
I feel like this article explains it in a way that reveals a bit more of the harsh reality, but still supports your claim of Muslim nations’ support of China’s policies. It’s also from Medium.
https://medium.com/the-diplomatic-pouch/analysis-why-muslim-countries-in-the-middle-east-support-chinese-atrocities-in-xinjiang-f4ec7d4bea48
They write plainly about the support being due to economic ties, fractured Muslim subdivisions, and “agreeing as a way to survive.”
At this point our source is the same and still contradicts itself.
Again, I’ll concede since I don’t have a more credible answer.
This is largely someone trying to explain away something and push a narrative. Again, read Xinjiang: A Resource and Report Compilation.