3 ms·

>against those who preached separatism Or who just promoted Uyghur language and culture, or didn’t cheer the Party on loudly enough: https://thediplomat.com/2

by _iyig 7y ago

>against those who preached separatism Or who just promoted Uyghur language and culture, or didn’t cheer the Party on loudly enough: https://thediplomat.com/2018/10/turn-in-the-two-faced-the-plight-of-uyghur-intellectuals/ https://thediplomat.com/2018/10/turn-in-the-two-faced-the-pl... EDIT: Do you think I’m exaggerating? From the link: “To be more precise, [two-faced] is a castigatory definition that Chinese politicians are using to highlight the “failure” of Uyghur intellectuals to manifest their unwavering and unambiguous allegiance to the CCP.” “In this sense, Uyghur intellectuals are forced to remain in the black and white world for their very survival; and in so doing, they are forced to abandon and denounce their own deeply rich culture against their will.“

dirtyid 7y ago
Sure, definitions malleable to the whims of the state. But that typically leads to jail terms. Hundreds of Uyghur academics have been detained, some died in custody, but as far as I'm aware only Tashpolat Tiyip and Halmurat Ghopur have been formally sentenced to death. Both at around the same time in late 2017 which suggest there might be firmer evidence behind the convictions. Or out of the 13,000 arrests officially categorized as terrorists, these two were arbitrarily being made examples of. It was a year after Chen Quanguo (architect of the camps) became the Party Secretary of Xinjiang and escalated the Strike Hard campaign (there's been no terrorists attacks since he took over), and within weeks of him being promoted to the CPC central politburo. Timing certainly is interesting. E: I didn't claim you were exaggerating? It takes very loose definitions to rationalize the levels of detainment happening in Xinjiang.
- dirasddf 7y ago
  > but as far as I'm aware only Tashpolat Tiyip and Halmurat Ghopur have been formally sentenced to death. Both at around the same time in late 2017 which suggest there might be firmer evidence behind the convictions. This is an appeal to authority fallacy. It also seems like you are only using this account to post hardline nationalistic remarks that are pro-censorship, pro-China. It might help the reader if you disclose your affiliation.
  - dirtyid 7y ago
    > hardline nationalistic remarks If by hardline you mean balanced instead o flow effort western echochamber hot takes then sure. I literally just submitted a post on Chinese rural surveillance program today. Prior to that a post on US company sentiment about Chinese tradewar using both US and Chinese commerce department data. So maybe use some common sense before throwing accusations. I also post in health and construction related stuff when it comes up, or Chinese geopolitics. The latter just happens to be more popular and filled with misinformation. Also you're literally a 1 comment throwaway account used to throw shade. I'm not concerned with my partiality. E: forgot to address your low effort, no contributory appeal to authority retort: highlighting the greater context and atypical nature of formal death sentences is not an appeal to authority but provides actual information relevant to the subject matter. CPC could executed any of the 13,000 terrorists it claimed to have caught since Strike Hard escalation in 2016, instead it chose to execute these two? Why? The reasons are worth considering. And it's not even that I don't believe CPC wouldn't trump up charges or that the situation in XinJiang is grossly unnecessary, but I also don't think that these two couldn't also be both excellent academic scholars but also maybe have funded or sheltered Turkmenistan terrorists on the side. They're not incompatible notions.
    - dirasddf1 7y ago
      This is attacking the straw man fallacy. It seems like you like to go on personal attacks when questioned. > I'm not concerned with my partiality. You obviously are despite what you claim. > If by hardline you mean balanced Like Fox News is fair and balanced. Purposefully presenting fallacies to sway the audience is not balance. Its deceitful. > low effort Yup and also to the point. It would be great if @dang kept an eye on @dirtyid.
      - dirtyid 7y ago
        You replies have been nothing but low-effort ad hominem accusations. My replies are factual context relevant information to the article. They're not so much as pro China as not explicitly anti China, but anything less is deceitful to you. You're not even using fallacies properly. If you're not going to provide useful information, at least get your attacks correct.

by _iyig 7y ago

dirtyid 7y ago

Sure, definitions malleable to the whims of the state. But that typically leads to jail terms. Hundreds of Uyghur academics have been detained, some died in custody, but as far as I'm aware only Tashpolat Tiyip and Halmurat Ghopur have been formally sentenced to death. Both at around the same time in late 2017 which suggest there might be firmer evidence behind the convictions. Or out of the 13,000 arrests officially categorized as terrorists, these two were arbitrarily being made examples of. It was a year after Chen Quanguo (architect of the camps) became the Party Secretary of Xinjiang and escalated the Strike Hard campaign (there's been no terrorists attacks since he took over), and within weeks of him being promoted to the CPC central politburo. Timing certainly is interesting. E: I didn't claim you were exaggerating? It takes very loose definitions to rationalize the levels of detainment happening in Xinjiang.

dirasddf 7y ago
> but as far as I'm aware only Tashpolat Tiyip and Halmurat Ghopur have been formally sentenced to death. Both at around the same time in late 2017 which suggest there might be firmer evidence behind the convictions. This is an appeal to authority fallacy. It also seems like you are only using this account to post hardline nationalistic remarks that are pro-censorship, pro-China. It might help the reader if you disclose your affiliation.
- dirtyid 7y ago
  > hardline nationalistic remarks If by hardline you mean balanced instead o flow effort western echochamber hot takes then sure. I literally just submitted a post on Chinese rural surveillance program today. Prior to that a post on US company sentiment about Chinese tradewar using both US and Chinese commerce department data. So maybe use some common sense before throwing accusations. I also post in health and construction related stuff when it comes up, or Chinese geopolitics. The latter just happens to be more popular and filled with misinformation. Also you're literally a 1 comment throwaway account used to throw shade. I'm not concerned with my partiality. E: forgot to address your low effort, no contributory appeal to authority retort: highlighting the greater context and atypical nature of formal death sentences is not an appeal to authority but provides actual information relevant to the subject matter. CPC could executed any of the 13,000 terrorists it claimed to have caught since Strike Hard escalation in 2016, instead it chose to execute these two? Why? The reasons are worth considering. And it's not even that I don't believe CPC wouldn't trump up charges or that the situation in XinJiang is grossly unnecessary, but I also don't think that these two couldn't also be both excellent academic scholars but also maybe have funded or sheltered Turkmenistan terrorists on the side. They're not incompatible notions.
  - dirasddf1 7y ago
    This is attacking the straw man fallacy. It seems like you like to go on personal attacks when questioned. > I'm not concerned with my partiality. You obviously are despite what you claim. > If by hardline you mean balanced Like Fox News is fair and balanced. Purposefully presenting fallacies to sway the audience is not balance. Its deceitful. > low effort Yup and also to the point. It would be great if @dang kept an eye on @dirtyid.
    - dirtyid 7y ago
      You replies have been nothing but low-effort ad hominem accusations. My replies are factual context relevant information to the article. They're not so much as pro China as not explicitly anti China, but anything less is deceitful to you. You're not even using fallacies properly. If you're not going to provide useful information, at least get your attacks correct.