4 ms·
That’s discounting the forced sterilization, imprisonment, and extermination of the target du jour, > One is an authoritative report documenting the systematic
by areoform 6y ago
That’s discounting the forced sterilization, imprisonment, and extermination of the target du jour,
> One is an authoritative report documenting the systematic sterilization of Uighur women. The other was the seizure by U.S. Customs and Border Protection of 13 tons of products made from human hair suspected of being forcibly removed from Uighurs imprisoned in concentration camps.
- https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/07/15/uighur-genocide-xinjiang-china-surveillance-sterilization/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/07/15/uighur-genocide-xinjian...
> they only censor what nobody cares about: critics of the party
Saying that they only censor their critics and adding that they are only censoring “what no one cares about, critics of the party” is disturbing.
When one person can impose their will on you, it’s all rainbows and kitties until you disagree or step out of line. As I am guessing that the people who oppose forced sterilization and the other Nazi concentration camp policies (forced shaving of hair at camps for use as a product is a fairly distinct one) will end up censored and at those camps too?
These problems and issues might be out of sound and out of mind for now, but sooner or later, as the previous enemy starts to thin out, they will find new ones. And eventually, they’ll come for you too.
Often people who live in autocracies by choice do not believe such warnings. They are the intellectual equivalent of exercise and vitamins.
To make it clearer, here's what happens at the end of such regimes. Even for their supporters,
Towards the end of the war, the Nazis who were occupying the Netherlands blew up a town hall after inviting 134 people and their children to take shelter there. These people were of the right race. Most of them had done nothing against them. Some of them might have supported them.
They were the in-group until they weren't. They died because they weren't members of the party.
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stadhuisramp_Heusden https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stadhuisramp_Heusden
Being ambitiously evil, the Nazis also killed erstwhile embraced citizens at scale with the Dutch famine by blocking the transport of food from farms to citizens in their occupied territories. They did it because they could.
Perhaps this is still distant. Here's a shorter example. Almost all of the people Stalin directly ordered to be killed were his supporters.
They were the in-group until they weren't.
- TacticalCoder 6y agoI don't disagree with you but... > They were the in-group until they weren't. They died because they weren't members of the party. So were they the in-group or not? Most people in occupied Europe did not approve at all of nazi germany. Sure, there were some collaborationist but most europeans did totally disapprove nazi germany. It's not the same as people who voted for communism then got was they asked for: in my opinion, when you vote for a totalitarian society, it's just fair game that in return you get what you asked for (I know, I know, the ultra-left leaning are going to say that "this wasn't true communism and next time, believe us, we're going to make it work"). You cannot compare occupied Europe who didn't ask to live under a totalitarian society to those who supported communism.