5 ms·

You can read the government's formal justification at http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/201903/19/WS5c9033f0a3106c65c34ef4ae.html http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/20

You can read the government's formal justification at http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/201903/19/WS5c9033f0a3106c65c34ef4ae.html http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/201903/19/WS5c9033f0a3106c65c... . Their argument is basically that foreign influence is trying to make Uyghurs more extreme in their religious beliefs, causing them to commit acts of terrorism. They argue that if they can completely prevent this foreign influence, and brainwash everybody who's inclined to extreme beliefs into avoiding those beliefs, they'll eliminate terrorism and keep Xinjiang safe for the majority who are not religious or not extremists. Essentially their argument is that if you can stamp out non-mild Islam, you stamp out Islamic extremism, which is a logically consistent argument (although of course whether their approach could actually stamp out extreme Islam, as opposed to just breeding more resistance, is a matter of debate). In this context their justification for preventing travel and separating families is preventing the spread of extremism and preventing communication between extremist groups. Another way to look at it. Imagine you're an amoral government bureaucrat ruling Xinjiang, and you're getting pressure from above about the terrorist attacks there (especially when Xinjiang residents are committing terrorist attacks in other provinces). Your KPI is to reduce the number of terrorist attacks to zero, and you have near unlimited funding. What's the simplest approach? Lock up anybody who has even the tiniest possibility of committing a terrorist attack, and institute the maximum amount of surveillance and monitoring that's technologically possible to identify any planned attacks. Also prevent your residents from going to other provinces, so even if they do manage to conduct a terrorist attack, it won't piss off anybody important (other province governors). That's the logic behind it.

clouddrover 7y ago
> That's the logic behind it. I think you've misunderstood the nature of rhetorical questions. I'm not interested in the Chinese government's pretexts or rationalizations. The problem is the violation of the basic human rights of people who have done nothing to warrant it.
- AstralStorm 7y ago
  You should not ask the questions you do not want an answer to, regardless how rhetorical they seem. This is HN, not Twitter. Thought stopping cliches will get pushed back. Violation of human rights (if these are even recognised by PRC under your definition; they're not) are committed on both sides. Trying to weigh them is silly and does not make them any better. Measuring others by your yardstick is a kind of imperialism.
  - clouddrover 7y ago
    > Thought stopping cliches will get pushed back. What cliches? You mean like the hypocritical and fundamentally dishonest nature of totalitarianism? > if these are even recognised by CCP under your definition They clearly don't recognize them because they are committing them. > are committed on both sides Two wrongs don't make a right. > Trying to weigh them is silly There is nothing to weigh. What the Chinese government is doing in Xinjiang is plainly wrong. Making excuses for it is silly.
- logicchains 7y ago
  You may call it a rhetorical question, someone else might see it as bad faith to ask about the government's rationale if you have no intention of actually listening to their reasons. You're not going to have any success convincing the average Chinese citizen that locking up Uyghurs is wrong if you're not going to engage with their concerns (the belief that if not for the government's actions they might be at risk of terror attacks).
  - clouddrover 7y ago
    > someone else might see it as bad faith That someone else would be wrong. Your misunderstanding is your fault, not mine. Take responsibility for yourself.
    - logicchains 7y ago
      How is it good faith then? Imagine the Chinese government is a person, you walk up to them and ask "what is your reason for doing this?". They start to explain "my reason is..", you stick your hands in your ears and reply "don't want to hear you, don't care, your reason is wrong, you are wrong!". That's not a productive way to engage with a point of view; it's certainly got zero chance of changing anybody's mind, all you achieve is pats on the back from people who already agree with you and the feeling of satisfaction from knowing you're morally right.
      - clouddrover 7y ago
        > * Imagine the Chinese government is a person* The Chinese government is not a person. There is no value in thinking of it as such. > you walk up to them and ask "what is your reason for doing this?". They start to explain "my reason is.." Their reasons don't matter. Only their actions matter. Only the outcomes matter. What they are doing in Xinjiang is plainly wrong. There is nothing to debate here. Their actions are dishonest and unjustified. Dressing up the immorality of what's being done in Xinjiang as a point of contention or debate is also dishonest.
        7y ago
logicchains 7y ago
To the people who downvoted this, note that presenting the Chinese government's argument doesn't mean supporting it. That said, if you're completely unwilling to even hear your other side's argument, you'll never be able to engage in productive debate or convince them of anything. You're also unlikely to have an accurate view of any situation if you're only listening to one side of the story. The Chinese government can get away with concentration camps in Xinjiang because many citizens are fine with it, and you're never going to change those peoples' minds by just shouting "you're morally wrong" at them.

clouddrover 7y ago

> That's the logic behind it. I think you've misunderstood the nature of rhetorical questions. I'm not interested in the Chinese government's pretexts or rationalizations. The problem is the violation of the basic human rights of people who have done nothing to warrant it.

AstralStorm 7y ago
You should not ask the questions you do not want an answer to, regardless how rhetorical they seem. This is HN, not Twitter. Thought stopping cliches will get pushed back. Violation of human rights (if these are even recognised by PRC under your definition; they're not) are committed on both sides. Trying to weigh them is silly and does not make them any better. Measuring others by your yardstick is a kind of imperialism.
- clouddrover 7y ago
  > Thought stopping cliches will get pushed back. What cliches? You mean like the hypocritical and fundamentally dishonest nature of totalitarianism? > if these are even recognised by CCP under your definition They clearly don't recognize them because they are committing them. > are committed on both sides Two wrongs don't make a right. > Trying to weigh them is silly There is nothing to weigh. What the Chinese government is doing in Xinjiang is plainly wrong. Making excuses for it is silly.
logicchains 7y ago
You may call it a rhetorical question, someone else might see it as bad faith to ask about the government's rationale if you have no intention of actually listening to their reasons. You're not going to have any success convincing the average Chinese citizen that locking up Uyghurs is wrong if you're not going to engage with their concerns (the belief that if not for the government's actions they might be at risk of terror attacks).
- clouddrover 7y ago
  > someone else might see it as bad faith That someone else would be wrong. Your misunderstanding is your fault, not mine. Take responsibility for yourself.
  - logicchains 7y ago
    How is it good faith then? Imagine the Chinese government is a person, you walk up to them and ask "what is your reason for doing this?". They start to explain "my reason is..", you stick your hands in your ears and reply "don't want to hear you, don't care, your reason is wrong, you are wrong!". That's not a productive way to engage with a point of view; it's certainly got zero chance of changing anybody's mind, all you achieve is pats on the back from people who already agree with you and the feeling of satisfaction from knowing you're morally right.
    - clouddrover 7y ago
      > * Imagine the Chinese government is a person* The Chinese government is not a person. There is no value in thinking of it as such. > you walk up to them and ask "what is your reason for doing this?". They start to explain "my reason is.." Their reasons don't matter. Only their actions matter. Only the outcomes matter. What they are doing in Xinjiang is plainly wrong. There is nothing to debate here. Their actions are dishonest and unjustified. Dressing up the immorality of what's being done in Xinjiang as a point of contention or debate is also dishonest.
      - 7y ago

logicchains 7y ago

To the people who downvoted this, note that presenting the Chinese government's argument doesn't mean supporting it. That said, if you're completely unwilling to even hear your other side's argument, you'll never be able to engage in productive debate or convince them of anything. You're also unlikely to have an accurate view of any situation if you're only listening to one side of the story. The Chinese government can get away with concentration camps in Xinjiang because many citizens are fine with it, and you're never going to change those peoples' minds by just shouting "you're morally wrong" at them.