6 ms·

It's incredibly sad that the world is not doing anything about it. Even if half of the things they say are true - putting anyone in camps for sporting a beard o

It's incredibly sad that the world is not doing anything about it. Even if half of the things they say are true - putting anyone in camps for sporting a beard or praying in public, forced prison labour, physical torture, separating new borns and kids from parents in camp, sending kids to brainwashing schools, sexual abuse, organ harvesting etc - it's enough to make anyone feel disgusted at this state of affairs. But the west won't care because of the ethnicity and religions of the victims just doesn't cause as much outrage as it should because the victims aren't white or christians. I know some of you will outraged at this suggestion but even Hollywood knows this - that's why the in one of the Rambo movies, where he is in Myanmar / Burma, the victims are Christians (instead of highlighting the real victims there, the Rohingya muslims facing persecutions - another genocide that the west prefers to turn a blind eye to).

mikro2nd 6y ago
"...separating new borns and kids from parents in camp, sending kids to brainwashing schools, sexual abuse..." So nothing like those concentration camps the US is running for refugees/"illegal migrants", then.
- Chris2048 6y ago
  Is this supposed to be sarcastic? No, it's nothing like US immigration camps.
- jkhdigital 6y ago
  There are a number of problems with your comparison, but the most fundamental is that the Uyghurs are being persecuted as citizens by their own government.
pizza234 6y ago
What can the world realistically do? China right now has enormous power over the rest of the world (by means of economical dependency), and I don't see that decreasing. To be clear, I certainly support human rights, but I personally see the situation as so bad, that I'm worried about how China's influence will extend to the West.
- burntoutfire 6y ago
  Trade embargos? Small ones at first, with an clear plan to plan and timeline to escalate if there's no change. Of course, it would mean putting the lives of those poor people our over our comfort, which means it won't happen.
  - pizza234 6y ago
    IMO, the case of the Nobel prize and salmon ban showed the opposite - that is inexpensive for China to punish a country, but not the opposite. A long analysis has actually been written on this topic: https://www.cmi.no/publications/5805-too-big-to-fault https://www.cmi.no/publications/5805-too-big-to-fault While on one hand, a coordinated punishment may be effective, on the other hand, I think China has the power to buy other countries' consent step by step. Additionally, I think China would never relent; doing so would be an admission of guilt, which is poisonous for their regime.
    - burntoutfire 6y ago
      > Additionally, I think China would never relent; doing so would be an admission of guilt, which is poisonous for their regime. They could spin it in the same manner as Putin - "those degenerate Western bastards are against us, we need to be strong and united to face them etc.".
- 0xfaded 6y ago
  If anything the last year has shown that the economy is more reconfigurable than what was previously thought. Meanwhile, new green-dealers are promoting moving manufacturing back to Europe to deal with the climate crisis. One solution is to use the ECB to print money, which is fine so long as the new money is used to build public assets and the majority of the new money is absorbed by labor. The core competency of EU innovation programs is micromanaging hourly expenditures. I'm sure some of that machinery could be moved over to building public assets in a way that doesn't overly enrich the holders of capital.
- computerfriend 6y ago
mac01021 6y ago
I'm not outraged by the suggestion, but I'm not sure it's true either. Maybe race and theology play a role for a few people, but I think the vast majority would be just as apathetic if they were a white, christian group, as long as they were as socially distant from us as the Uyghurs are from us (imagine some kind of Amish-style group that had been living there socially isolated from us for centuries) Of course this is hard to verify empirically, but I think it's an important distinction.
- webmobdev 6y ago
  The thing is, the west has chosen the "Christian, white identity" for its "us vs them" political discourse. Yes, their democracy does strive to push multiculturalism today (it didn't in the past), but politically this identity is important as only that spans borders and allows them to forge strong political ties. They need to because older civilizations like in Asia and the middle-east out number them. Apart from this, it's basic politics that you have to seem superior than others to wield power. Thus, imperialism spread the idea that the white christian was put on earth to educate the rest and even rule over them. That is why white colonies - like the US, Canada, Australia etc. had more freedom and rights than the occupied colonies like India, China, middle east, Africa etc whose citizen where heavily discriminated against by the conquerors. In today's modern world, this superiority is showcased through technical advancement, peace and prosperity - thus, US and UK made a concerted effort to ensure that conflicts among European countries ended or became minor irritants, and they appeared united. Thus the US, Canada, Europe, Australia all together project a united front through a strong economic and military alliance. And they also make sure that their close allies (that allow a military base) also flourish economically - that is one of the reason why Israel, Korea and Japan have a thriving economy (but a not so independent military). To reinforce this perception they also cause conflict among the weaker nations. The old British policy of divide and rule continues to strive as historical grievances between countries are used to keep them fighting each other - thus today conflicts continue in South America, Africa, Asia and Eurasia. And they are fueled by the west taking sides as they please. Another major reason for creating conflicts is to ensure that their military continues to have fighting experience - thus they are also regularly send to these conflict zones. (Afghanistan, Iraq and now Syria being current examples. While it was Vietnam and Korea in the past). The biggest fear of the west is an Asia without conflict - If India and China and Japan resolve their differences, and work together, the age of the west as we know it will be over. Hence their desperate attempt to manipulate and push China into more and more conflict with India, Japan and Korea. And try to get these countries to agree to a military alliance with the west (the quad alliance - US, India, Japan and Australia ... India is the only holdout here).
aww_dang 6y ago
The CCP has a history of repressing Christians and continues to abuse Christians. https://bitterwinter.org/ https://bitterwinter.org/

mikro2nd 6y ago

"...separating new borns and kids from parents in camp, sending kids to brainwashing schools, sexual abuse..." So nothing like those concentration camps the US is running for refugees/"illegal migrants", then.

Chris2048 6y ago
Is this supposed to be sarcastic? No, it's nothing like US immigration camps.
jkhdigital 6y ago
There are a number of problems with your comparison, but the most fundamental is that the Uyghurs are being persecuted as citizens by their own government.

pizza234 6y ago

What can the world realistically do? China right now has enormous power over the rest of the world (by means of economical dependency), and I don't see that decreasing. To be clear, I certainly support human rights, but I personally see the situation as so bad, that I'm worried about how China's influence will extend to the West.

burntoutfire 6y ago
Trade embargos? Small ones at first, with an clear plan to plan and timeline to escalate if there's no change. Of course, it would mean putting the lives of those poor people our over our comfort, which means it won't happen.
- pizza234 6y ago
  IMO, the case of the Nobel prize and salmon ban showed the opposite - that is inexpensive for China to punish a country, but not the opposite. A long analysis has actually been written on this topic: https://www.cmi.no/publications/5805-too-big-to-fault https://www.cmi.no/publications/5805-too-big-to-fault While on one hand, a coordinated punishment may be effective, on the other hand, I think China has the power to buy other countries' consent step by step. Additionally, I think China would never relent; doing so would be an admission of guilt, which is poisonous for their regime.
  - burntoutfire 6y ago
    > Additionally, I think China would never relent; doing so would be an admission of guilt, which is poisonous for their regime. They could spin it in the same manner as Putin - "those degenerate Western bastards are against us, we need to be strong and united to face them etc.".
0xfaded 6y ago
If anything the last year has shown that the economy is more reconfigurable than what was previously thought. Meanwhile, new green-dealers are promoting moving manufacturing back to Europe to deal with the climate crisis. One solution is to use the ECB to print money, which is fine so long as the new money is used to build public assets and the majority of the new money is absorbed by labor. The core competency of EU innovation programs is micromanaging hourly expenditures. I'm sure some of that machinery could be moved over to building public assets in a way that doesn't overly enrich the holders of capital.
computerfriend 6y ago

mac01021 6y ago

I'm not outraged by the suggestion, but I'm not sure it's true either. Maybe race and theology play a role for a few people, but I think the vast majority would be just as apathetic if they were a white, christian group, as long as they were as socially distant from us as the Uyghurs are from us (imagine some kind of Amish-style group that had been living there socially isolated from us for centuries) Of course this is hard to verify empirically, but I think it's an important distinction.

webmobdev 6y ago
The thing is, the west has chosen the "Christian, white identity" for its "us vs them" political discourse. Yes, their democracy does strive to push multiculturalism today (it didn't in the past), but politically this identity is important as only that spans borders and allows them to forge strong political ties. They need to because older civilizations like in Asia and the middle-east out number them. Apart from this, it's basic politics that you have to seem superior than others to wield power. Thus, imperialism spread the idea that the white christian was put on earth to educate the rest and even rule over them. That is why white colonies - like the US, Canada, Australia etc. had more freedom and rights than the occupied colonies like India, China, middle east, Africa etc whose citizen where heavily discriminated against by the conquerors. In today's modern world, this superiority is showcased through technical advancement, peace and prosperity - thus, US and UK made a concerted effort to ensure that conflicts among European countries ended or became minor irritants, and they appeared united. Thus the US, Canada, Europe, Australia all together project a united front through a strong economic and military alliance. And they also make sure that their close allies (that allow a military base) also flourish economically - that is one of the reason why Israel, Korea and Japan have a thriving economy (but a not so independent military). To reinforce this perception they also cause conflict among the weaker nations. The old British policy of divide and rule continues to strive as historical grievances between countries are used to keep them fighting each other - thus today conflicts continue in South America, Africa, Asia and Eurasia. And they are fueled by the west taking sides as they please. Another major reason for creating conflicts is to ensure that their military continues to have fighting experience - thus they are also regularly send to these conflict zones. (Afghanistan, Iraq and now Syria being current examples. While it was Vietnam and Korea in the past). The biggest fear of the west is an Asia without conflict - If India and China and Japan resolve their differences, and work together, the age of the west as we know it will be over. Hence their desperate attempt to manipulate and push China into more and more conflict with India, Japan and Korea. And try to get these countries to agree to a military alliance with the west (the quad alliance - US, India, Japan and Australia ... India is the only holdout here).

aww_dang 6y ago

The CCP has a history of repressing Christians and continues to abuse Christians. https://bitterwinter.org/ https://bitterwinter.org/