4 ms·

The article details the results of the conflict between religion and state and in that context my reaction is to the point. Stating that a reaction to such an a

The article details the results of the conflict between religion and state and in that context my reaction is to the point. Stating that a reaction to such an article is analogous to a 'religious and nationalistic and ideological flamewar' is inane, in that case the article itself should not have been posted or the comment function should have been disabled.

dang 8y ago
We don't disable comments on articles, we ask commenters to follow the guidelines and use HN as intended: for the gratification of intellectual curiosity, not blaring agendas or pre-existing talking points.
- Yetanfou 8y ago
  I'm surprised by your insistence on labeling my comment as 'blaring agendas or pre-existing talking', maybe you should read it again? Consider the implications of the clash between the Chinese Communist Party and Islam - because that is what is going on here, both the conflict as well as the party's reaction are comparable to that between the CCP and the practice of Falun Gong - and you'll end up at the same point: one side has to give in and the chance of that being the CCP is slim. The chance of the Uyghurs (whether it be the pan-Islamists of the East Turkestan Islamic Movement, the pan-Turkic East Turkestan Liberation Organization, the "Uyghurstan" East Turkestan independence movement or any of the other groups which comprise the non-homogeneous region of Xinjang) submitting to the wills of the CCP is also slim, read up on the history of the region and you'll find a number of recent conflicts with similar roots.
  - dang 8y ago
    I said talking points. There's a certain class of users, thankfully a small minority, who have passionate pre-existing agendas and show up to argue grand claims about race/nation/religion/etc. with details about the pan-Turkic East Turkestan Liberation Organization or whatever. Your account shows signs of being like that. Please don't on HN. It's both tedious and destructive—quite a double whammy for the rest of us.
    - Yetanfou 8y ago
      I have no idea if you'll read this as the censorship in the discussion thread seems to be heavy - nearly everything is gone by now. What you call a 'pre-existing agenda' is to me nothing more than the unwillingness to close (or willingness to open) my eyes for certain phenomena. In this case I'm fairly sure you triggered on me mentioning Islam as a factor in this conflict even though in your last message you seem to trigger om my mentioning one of the other parties in the conflict in this region. Not mentioning Islam is, in my opinion, analogous to closing your eyes to a significant part of the origin of this conflict. Insisting on others not mentioning Islam - or any of the other parties involved - eventually leads to the thing you purport to disdain, the rise of a 'class of people' (viz. 'class of users') who do nothing but mention the 'forbidden' subject. History is rife with examples of the rise of extremism due to the suppression of reasonable opposition. Problems don't disappear by ignoring them, wounds don't heal by merely covering them, conflicts don't get solved by gagging the debate. Doing so eventually leads to the solution found in Venezuela to solve the number of children dying due to starvation: they essentially forbade doctors to state starvation as the cause of death [1]. That is extremism, and that is where we don't want to end up. Nor do we want to end up in a situation like that in China, or in Yemen, or Turkey or any of the other places in the world being held by or falling into the hands of extremists. The only way to avoid this is by being open to viewpoints which oppose your own and by being open to discussion. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/17/world/americas/venezuela-children-starving.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/17/world/america...

dang 8y ago

We don't disable comments on articles, we ask commenters to follow the guidelines and use HN as intended: for the gratification of intellectual curiosity, not blaring agendas or pre-existing talking points.

Yetanfou 8y ago
I'm surprised by your insistence on labeling my comment as 'blaring agendas or pre-existing talking', maybe you should read it again? Consider the implications of the clash between the Chinese Communist Party and Islam - because that is what is going on here, both the conflict as well as the party's reaction are comparable to that between the CCP and the practice of Falun Gong - and you'll end up at the same point: one side has to give in and the chance of that being the CCP is slim. The chance of the Uyghurs (whether it be the pan-Islamists of the East Turkestan Islamic Movement, the pan-Turkic East Turkestan Liberation Organization, the "Uyghurstan" East Turkestan independence movement or any of the other groups which comprise the non-homogeneous region of Xinjang) submitting to the wills of the CCP is also slim, read up on the history of the region and you'll find a number of recent conflicts with similar roots.
- dang 8y ago
  I said talking points. There's a certain class of users, thankfully a small minority, who have passionate pre-existing agendas and show up to argue grand claims about race/nation/religion/etc. with details about the pan-Turkic East Turkestan Liberation Organization or whatever. Your account shows signs of being like that. Please don't on HN. It's both tedious and destructive—quite a double whammy for the rest of us.
  - Yetanfou 8y ago
    I have no idea if you'll read this as the censorship in the discussion thread seems to be heavy - nearly everything is gone by now. What you call a 'pre-existing agenda' is to me nothing more than the unwillingness to close (or willingness to open) my eyes for certain phenomena. In this case I'm fairly sure you triggered on me mentioning Islam as a factor in this conflict even though in your last message you seem to trigger om my mentioning one of the other parties in the conflict in this region. Not mentioning Islam is, in my opinion, analogous to closing your eyes to a significant part of the origin of this conflict. Insisting on others not mentioning Islam - or any of the other parties involved - eventually leads to the thing you purport to disdain, the rise of a 'class of people' (viz. 'class of users') who do nothing but mention the 'forbidden' subject. History is rife with examples of the rise of extremism due to the suppression of reasonable opposition. Problems don't disappear by ignoring them, wounds don't heal by merely covering them, conflicts don't get solved by gagging the debate. Doing so eventually leads to the solution found in Venezuela to solve the number of children dying due to starvation: they essentially forbade doctors to state starvation as the cause of death [1]. That is extremism, and that is where we don't want to end up. Nor do we want to end up in a situation like that in China, or in Yemen, or Turkey or any of the other places in the world being held by or falling into the hands of extremists. The only way to avoid this is by being open to viewpoints which oppose your own and by being open to discussion. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/17/world/americas/venezuela-children-starving.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/17/world/america...