5 ms·

That's my guess. Also, I think there are some jumps in the severity of things in your examples that probably come off as bad faith. Your list is not quite as b

That's my guess. Also, I think there are some jumps in the severity of things in your examples that probably come off as bad faith. Your list is not quite as bad as A. Just helping the Uighurs, but maybe not in the best way. B. Just killing all the Uighurs. But I think a lot of people have issue with your list not considering the fact that there may be something between full killing/genocide and only some of them being killed (perhaps the more religious? the imams? those whose blood tests show they'll make a good organ donor?) and the idea of "demographic genocide"; or with your list not mentioning the fact that the brutality may not be policy but that it may be tacitly condoned; or your list not mentioning that it doesn't take obvious destruction of artefacts, buildings, or killing of imams to erase a religion or tradition and that it can happen in more subtle ways. Many westerners grow up learning about the potential horrors of western imperialism and colonialism, and they are worried about the sinicization of Islam (and everything else). I realize this comment may come off as rude, but I think that it is a real explanation of the downvotes. It's also important to realize that it's a lot easier for people to vote than to converse, especially when most people know about issues like this from headlines, skimming articles, etc.

FooBarWidget 6y ago
I don’t think your comment is rude. It makes sense, even if I don’t agree with people who think the way you describe it. I made a best effort to describe the various possibilities that I think exist. I just think that it’s silly when so many people condemn China for being unfree, yet at the same time throw away their free society values of encouraging discussions and respecting each others’ opinions, when it comes to discussing China topics.
- James_Henry 6y ago
  I'd like to ask, do you pretty much believe your option A? If so, what do you think of the Buzzfeed News investigation and reporting? Also, do you thing the re-education of Uighurs and others is the right thing for the Communist Party to be doing? I understand you may not want to comment publicly here, so if you want, feel free to email me (my profile has my email).
  - free_rms 6y ago
    All of the reporting just indicates buildings exist. I'm not sure what to believe, lots of things are in range given the evidence, but I don't take "look, a building" to mean much of anything.
    - James_Henry 6y ago
      Some of the buildings are very clearly used as detention centers. They've been confirmed by journalists, for instance. Not all are proven to be camps and just look like they could be. (I don't know why China would need so many guarded prison looking areas with thick concrete walls, but I'm sure someone could come up with a reason.) I was talking about the other two articles by Buzzfeed. They interviewed quite a few people who were arrested and then released from these centers. Also, there is no question (meaning China has admitted it) that China has a re-education and de-radicalization program for which they are detaining Uighurs (and others) against their will. It is part of their larger plans to sinicize Islam from what I understand. What are your thoughts on this?
      - free_rms 6y ago
        I agree with your facts there, although "sinicize Islam" sounds awfully grand? In context with Western countries' reactions to militant islam, it's very different, different cultural norms, but it's hard to call it comparatively monstrous. What if it works? What we're doing in afghanistan clearly isn't working, despite the humanitarian cost..
        James_Henry 6y ago
        The phrase Sinicization of Islam is Xi Jinping's, or at least the CCP's. It does sound grand and oppressive, especially when you consider that it is about more than just a considerate plan to minimize the threat of violent sects of Islam and includes stopping Islamic finance, mosque-run schools, religious Arabic-language schools, and more much worse as we've heard reports of (bits of which are reported in the articles). Sure, these traditions may be vectors for some particular type of violent Islamic ideas to spread, but they are also important parts of many's peaceful faith. Of course, the CCP has never really tried that hard to pretend they don't see religion as a threat. I mean, it really is a threat to the CCP's ultimate power. And if one doesn't have cultural norms respecting a person's right to peacefully practice religion and traditions, then I guess one wouldn't consider forced re-education camps monstrous. But if one did, then I don't think it would matter if it "works". I won't try and justify American wars or reason about their effectiveness in preventing violence.

FooBarWidget 6y ago

I don’t think your comment is rude. It makes sense, even if I don’t agree with people who think the way you describe it. I made a best effort to describe the various possibilities that I think exist. I just think that it’s silly when so many people condemn China for being unfree, yet at the same time throw away their free society values of encouraging discussions and respecting each others’ opinions, when it comes to discussing China topics.

James_Henry 6y ago
I'd like to ask, do you pretty much believe your option A? If so, what do you think of the Buzzfeed News investigation and reporting? Also, do you thing the re-education of Uighurs and others is the right thing for the Communist Party to be doing? I understand you may not want to comment publicly here, so if you want, feel free to email me (my profile has my email).
- free_rms 6y ago
  All of the reporting just indicates buildings exist. I'm not sure what to believe, lots of things are in range given the evidence, but I don't take "look, a building" to mean much of anything.
  - James_Henry 6y ago
    Some of the buildings are very clearly used as detention centers. They've been confirmed by journalists, for instance. Not all are proven to be camps and just look like they could be. (I don't know why China would need so many guarded prison looking areas with thick concrete walls, but I'm sure someone could come up with a reason.) I was talking about the other two articles by Buzzfeed. They interviewed quite a few people who were arrested and then released from these centers. Also, there is no question (meaning China has admitted it) that China has a re-education and de-radicalization program for which they are detaining Uighurs (and others) against their will. It is part of their larger plans to sinicize Islam from what I understand. What are your thoughts on this?
    - free_rms 6y ago
      I agree with your facts there, although "sinicize Islam" sounds awfully grand? In context with Western countries' reactions to militant islam, it's very different, different cultural norms, but it's hard to call it comparatively monstrous. What if it works? What we're doing in afghanistan clearly isn't working, despite the humanitarian cost..
      - James_Henry 6y ago
        The phrase Sinicization of Islam is Xi Jinping's, or at least the CCP's. It does sound grand and oppressive, especially when you consider that it is about more than just a considerate plan to minimize the threat of violent sects of Islam and includes stopping Islamic finance, mosque-run schools, religious Arabic-language schools, and more much worse as we've heard reports of (bits of which are reported in the articles). Sure, these traditions may be vectors for some particular type of violent Islamic ideas to spread, but they are also important parts of many's peaceful faith. Of course, the CCP has never really tried that hard to pretend they don't see religion as a threat. I mean, it really is a threat to the CCP's ultimate power. And if one doesn't have cultural norms respecting a person's right to peacefully practice religion and traditions, then I guess one wouldn't consider forced re-education camps monstrous. But if one did, then I don't think it would matter if it "works". I won't try and justify American wars or reason about their effectiveness in preventing violence.