5 ms·

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Zenz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Zenz ... the china expert > Zenz co-authored the book Worthy to Escape: Why All

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Zenz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Zenz ... the china expert > Zenz co-authored the book Worthy to Escape: Why All Believers Will Not Be Raptured Before the Tribulation which links modern trends, including gender equality, homosexuality and bans on corporal punishment, to the power of the Antichrist. The more I look at it, history is one ethnic group against the other. The winners do what they want, the weak suffer as prisoners of war.

garceus 6y ago
Of course the US will use questionable sources when it comes to slandering China or any other countries it deems a threat...
SheinhardtWigCo 6y ago
Look at the edit history for that article. It’s not useful as a reference for this discussion. I mean, frankly, much of this discussion is probably not authentic either. These topics always attract people who will bend over backwards to defend genocide. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Cent_Party https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Cent_Party
- dang 6y ago
  "Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=true&page=0&query=by:dang%20astroturf https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...
oefrha 6y ago
In reply to a flagged sibling: what's there to see in the edit history? There was an edit war (or maybe I should use the plural, didn't look too closely), which is common on controversial topics, and judging from the talk page it has been resolved with a compromise. Bottom line, dude did coauthor that book, and even the title is telling enough. Also, unrelated, it's sad that any comment trying to discuss or question what's specifically in the article is quickly downvoted into oblivion -- except this one, curiously -- and only general threads suitable (or unsuitable) for any submission loosely on this topic remain. People are quick to post insinuations about astroturfing too, despite guidelines specifically banning that.
- foobar_ 6y ago
  It seems the comments about iraq, yemen, afghanistan them have been downvoted / flagged. I guess this one too. There's a documentary on netflix showing the 13th amendment's relation to the labor camps, shocking to say the least. I don't think there is anything new in the article. It's the standard rhetoric used by UK/US media. Also notice the conspicuous absence of Saudis, they too are involved in messy labor practices. Oddly enough not a single of these pointless articles will mention that its another country in some sense - Turkestan ... because if thats the context of the debate then US will have to give up puerto rico, california and indian territories and UK ireland and France guiana and so on .... Here's the irony of the whole situation, from their standpoint the chinese too are liberating the places from feudalism and they have made some progress in the regions as opposed to the reckless military interventions of other nations. The fact of the matter is literally none of the allied powers cared for the genocides in WWII, they even welcomed it. The POWs were also completely ignored post war which is one of the unspoken tragedies. In democratically elected nations it seems the only way to go to war is to paint the other side as a dictator go to war with it. The lies are just tiring at this point.
  - botverse 6y ago
    It is very unfortunate that Saudi Arabia is mentioned by all the supporters of human rights abuses as a benchmark, I don’t see how the absence of mentioning Saudi Arabia is conspicuous at all. The absurdity of it is that normally the countries compared with Saudi are allies [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93Saudi_Arabia_relations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93Saudi_Arabia_rel...
  - Paradigma11 6y ago
    China did liberate the area from feudalism by killing the ppl living there in the first place: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dzungar_genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dzungar_genocide China intentionally and resettled the uighurs there in first place after having killed 80% of the population that lived there. How can you make an historical argument without mentioning this small detail?

garceus 6y ago

Of course the US will use questionable sources when it comes to slandering China or any other countries it deems a threat...

SheinhardtWigCo 6y ago

Look at the edit history for that article. It’s not useful as a reference for this discussion. I mean, frankly, much of this discussion is probably not authentic either. These topics always attract people who will bend over backwards to defend genocide. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Cent_Party https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Cent_Party

dang 6y ago
"Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=true&page=0&query=by:dang%20astroturf https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...

oefrha 6y ago

In reply to a flagged sibling: what's there to see in the edit history? There was an edit war (or maybe I should use the plural, didn't look too closely), which is common on controversial topics, and judging from the talk page it has been resolved with a compromise. Bottom line, dude did coauthor that book, and even the title is telling enough. Also, unrelated, it's sad that any comment trying to discuss or question what's specifically in the article is quickly downvoted into oblivion -- except this one, curiously -- and only general threads suitable (or unsuitable) for any submission loosely on this topic remain. People are quick to post insinuations about astroturfing too, despite guidelines specifically banning that.

foobar_ 6y ago
It seems the comments about iraq, yemen, afghanistan them have been downvoted / flagged. I guess this one too. There's a documentary on netflix showing the 13th amendment's relation to the labor camps, shocking to say the least. I don't think there is anything new in the article. It's the standard rhetoric used by UK/US media. Also notice the conspicuous absence of Saudis, they too are involved in messy labor practices. Oddly enough not a single of these pointless articles will mention that its another country in some sense - Turkestan ... because if thats the context of the debate then US will have to give up puerto rico, california and indian territories and UK ireland and France guiana and so on .... Here's the irony of the whole situation, from their standpoint the chinese too are liberating the places from feudalism and they have made some progress in the regions as opposed to the reckless military interventions of other nations. The fact of the matter is literally none of the allied powers cared for the genocides in WWII, they even welcomed it. The POWs were also completely ignored post war which is one of the unspoken tragedies. In democratically elected nations it seems the only way to go to war is to paint the other side as a dictator go to war with it. The lies are just tiring at this point.
- botverse 6y ago
  It is very unfortunate that Saudi Arabia is mentioned by all the supporters of human rights abuses as a benchmark, I don’t see how the absence of mentioning Saudi Arabia is conspicuous at all. The absurdity of it is that normally the countries compared with Saudi are allies [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93Saudi_Arabia_relations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93Saudi_Arabia_rel...
- Paradigma11 6y ago
  China did liberate the area from feudalism by killing the ppl living there in the first place: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dzungar_genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dzungar_genocide China intentionally and resettled the uighurs there in first place after having killed 80% of the population that lived there. How can you make an historical argument without mentioning this small detail?