You’re going to find Communists on a website made by Communists. Don’t know what you mean by “genocide denial,” but in another comment you were unironically recommending the Black Book of Communism’s chief writer as a legitimate source, you’re doing the “Communism killed 100 million” meme.
Uyghurs aren’t being systematically murdered at scale. There are reeducation camps, but to call it “genocide” isn’t accurate. You should read the UN report.
As for the idea of an “intentional famine,” this is disputed at best. In reality, there was a famine in the 1930s that didn’t have any racial motivations. Nobody denies the famine’s existence.
So no, I’m not doing genocide denial, and I’m correct, you want to appear morally righteous regardless of the real facts.
The UN hasn’t explicitly called it genocide, but if you assume China’s motivation is to reduce their population, it seems hard to argue its actions wouldn’t qualify. Widespread arbitrary imprisonment and certainly forced sterilization would meet at least condition 4 of their requirement. The Genocide Convention’s definition is below, emphasis mine:
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
Killing members of the group;
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
You could argue they don’t actually intend to reduce the Uyghur population, but it’s hard to accept that a surge in the Xinjiang region’s sterilization rate and the birth rate being cut in half over the course of three years are just anti-terrorism measures.
The thing is, I don’t assume China’s goal is to reduce the Uyghur population. The claims of “forced sterilization” are misrepresentations from known liar and propagandist Adrian Zenz, who misread 8% of new annual IUDs going to Uyghur women as 80%. There’s no evidence whatsoever of forced sterilization.
There are reeducation camps, but I don’t think reeducation alone is sufficient to call it a genocide, especially when we know it’s pretty much over as a program and yet no evidence of mass sterilization or murder is here. Uyghurs were actually exempt from the One Child Policy, their birth rate is falling with the rest of China as poverty is reduced and from a higher height as they were actually allowed to have more kids previously.
This is a good example of one of things people hate about lemmy.
Communism fan boying, implicit denial of genocides committed by communist powers, out in the open on the front page.
You’re going to find Communists on a website made by Communists. Don’t know what you mean by “genocide denial,” but in another comment you were unironically recommending the Black Book of Communism’s chief writer as a legitimate source, you’re doing the “Communism killed 100 million” meme.
And you cited a website that denies the Uyghur Genocide and the Holodomor.
You’re doing genocide denial.
The Uyghur genocide? The genocide that the UN explicitly and clearly doesn’t call a genocide? That one?
Wow, I wonder what went on there…
Uyghurs aren’t being systematically murdered at scale. There are reeducation camps, but to call it “genocide” isn’t accurate. You should read the UN report.
As for the idea of an “intentional famine,” this is disputed at best. In reality, there was a famine in the 1930s that didn’t have any racial motivations. Nobody denies the famine’s existence.
So no, I’m not doing genocide denial, and I’m correct, you want to appear morally righteous regardless of the real facts.
The UN hasn’t explicitly called it genocide, but if you assume China’s motivation is to reduce their population, it seems hard to argue its actions wouldn’t qualify. Widespread arbitrary imprisonment and certainly forced sterilization would meet at least condition 4 of their requirement. The Genocide Convention’s definition is below, emphasis mine:
You could argue they don’t actually intend to reduce the Uyghur population, but it’s hard to accept that a surge in the Xinjiang region’s sterilization rate and the birth rate being cut in half over the course of three years are just anti-terrorism measures.
The thing is, I don’t assume China’s goal is to reduce the Uyghur population. The claims of “forced sterilization” are misrepresentations from known liar and propagandist Adrian Zenz, who misread 8% of new annual IUDs going to Uyghur women as 80%. There’s no evidence whatsoever of forced sterilization.
There are reeducation camps, but I don’t think reeducation alone is sufficient to call it a genocide, especially when we know it’s pretty much over as a program and yet no evidence of mass sterilization or murder is here. Uyghurs were actually exempt from the One Child Policy, their birth rate is falling with the rest of China as poverty is reduced and from a higher height as they were actually allowed to have more kids previously.
Yep, if you assume things that aren’t true then you can draw faulty conclusions…who would’ve guessed?
Okay. You know where the exit is.
What communist “genocides”? This one? Or this one[1][2]? Or this one?