4 ms·

> My only aim is to dissent against the manufacturing of consent for another bloody US war. What has this got to do with whether what is reported about Xinjian

by zepto 5y ago

> My only aim is to dissent against the manufacturing of consent for another bloody US war. What has this got to do with whether what is reported about Xinjiang is true or not?

xtian 5y ago
Well NATO-aligned countries seem to be the only ones claiming that it’s true. There’s a pretty clear pattern in US history. Or are you still hoping for Saddam’s WMDs to show up to justify the fact that due to the US’ use of depleted uranium munitions, Fallujah now has one of the highest rates of birth defects, childhood cancer, and multiple cancers in the world?
- zepto 5y ago
  Ok - so you seem to keep quoting bad things about the US and now NATO, but what has this to do with the truth of what is happening in Xinjiang? Are you claiming the reports are lies? Obviously the CCP and anyone they have influence over will want to play the reports down.
  - xtian 5y ago
    There are plenty of reports that conflict with those coming out of the US media, and plenty of conflicts of interest (at the very least) in the sources of those reports. What do you make of these two pieces of CCP propaganda? https://youtube.com/watch?v=AaitXSdjFP8 https://youtube.com/watch?v=AaitXSdjFP8 https://youtube.com/watch?v=4N385vKhXYQ https://youtube.com/watch?v=4N385vKhXYQ
    - zepto 5y ago
      Do you not think the CCP has an interest in denying the claims? You talk as if only one side of this is politically motivated. Is that what you really think?
      - xtian 5y ago
        Of course they do? I was being sarcastic about “CCP propaganda” but I guess you didn’t watch them so you didn’t get it. Where have I said that only one side has political interests?
        zepto 5y ago
        > Where have I said that only one side has political interests? You haven’t, but you have repeatedly cited only one side’s political interests to further your argument that that side is lying.
        xtian 5y ago
        Oh ok. Let me state China’s political interest: to not have their political sovereignty violated and be carved up by Western powers.
        joyeuse6701 5y ago
        I 100% believe the U.S.G. would use the Uighur situation as a reason for war, despite other more morally lacking reasons (power). I also 100% believe that the CCP would do something to the Uighur's worth starting a war over. The CCP is a military dictatorship, the people running the show aren't elected officials and the people, Uighur and otherwise aren't free to speak their minds or learn except for what the party allows. This setup has never resulted in a good outcome long term. Ever. Let's not be naive, but instead reflect on the preconditions necessary for the abuse of power and recognize the CCP has met all of them in this situation.
        zepto 5y ago
        Ah, so you believe China has no geopolitical aims of its own other than defending itself from being dismantled. This explains the black and white narrative of the US as aggressor and China as victim that you tell.
        xtian 5y ago
- Isamu 5y ago
  Amnesty International is just a mouthpiece of NATO?
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    Amnesty international has previously backed factually erroneous statements of atrocities that were pivotal in justifying military action by NATO.
sudosysgen 5y ago
It's pretty simple. If you start from these two premises : 1- All reporting on Xinjiang is rooted in content from organizations linked one way or another to American/Western defence industry (ASPI, Zenz, BBC, etc... ) 2. These groups have, as their modus operandi, used seemingly neutral and informative outlets over which they have influence in order to shape public opinion to manufacture consent. From then on its pretty easy to come to those conclusions. It's empirically true that quite a bit of reporting on Xinjiang is false, and it's also true that the US uses the issue of Xinjiang to back actions that have a 0% chance of helping victims of human rights abuses there but that materially improve the American geopolitical solution. Wether your want to take it as far as xtian did is something that can be disputed. But it's definitely valid to connect the veracity of western claims on geopolitical enemies to US/NATO warmongering.
- zepto 5y ago
  > If you start from these two premises : Starting from those two premises is the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    No it's not. Those premises are reasonable and many people hold them. They're not affirming the consequent just because you can draw the conclusion from them. It's actually kind of the point of premises, to draw consequences from them. If you disagree, we can discuss where. But there is no fallacy here.

by zepto 5y ago

> My only aim is to dissent against the manufacturing of consent for another bloody US war. What has this got to do with whether what is reported about Xinjiang is true or not?

xtian 5y ago

Well NATO-aligned countries seem to be the only ones claiming that it’s true. There’s a pretty clear pattern in US history. Or are you still hoping for Saddam’s WMDs to show up to justify the fact that due to the US’ use of depleted uranium munitions, Fallujah now has one of the highest rates of birth defects, childhood cancer, and multiple cancers in the world?

zepto 5y ago
Ok - so you seem to keep quoting bad things about the US and now NATO, but what has this to do with the truth of what is happening in Xinjiang? Are you claiming the reports are lies? Obviously the CCP and anyone they have influence over will want to play the reports down.
- xtian 5y ago
  There are plenty of reports that conflict with those coming out of the US media, and plenty of conflicts of interest (at the very least) in the sources of those reports. What do you make of these two pieces of CCP propaganda? https://youtube.com/watch?v=AaitXSdjFP8 https://youtube.com/watch?v=AaitXSdjFP8 https://youtube.com/watch?v=4N385vKhXYQ https://youtube.com/watch?v=4N385vKhXYQ
  - zepto 5y ago
    Do you not think the CCP has an interest in denying the claims? You talk as if only one side of this is politically motivated. Is that what you really think?
    - xtian 5y ago
      Of course they do? I was being sarcastic about “CCP propaganda” but I guess you didn’t watch them so you didn’t get it. Where have I said that only one side has political interests?
      - zepto 5y ago
        > Where have I said that only one side has political interests? You haven’t, but you have repeatedly cited only one side’s political interests to further your argument that that side is lying.
        xtian 5y ago
        Oh ok. Let me state China’s political interest: to not have their political sovereignty violated and be carved up by Western powers.
        joyeuse6701 5y ago
        I 100% believe the U.S.G. would use the Uighur situation as a reason for war, despite other more morally lacking reasons (power). I also 100% believe that the CCP would do something to the Uighur's worth starting a war over. The CCP is a military dictatorship, the people running the show aren't elected officials and the people, Uighur and otherwise aren't free to speak their minds or learn except for what the party allows. This setup has never resulted in a good outcome long term. Ever. Let's not be naive, but instead reflect on the preconditions necessary for the abuse of power and recognize the CCP has met all of them in this situation.
        zepto 5y ago
        Ah, so you believe China has no geopolitical aims of its own other than defending itself from being dismantled. This explains the black and white narrative of the US as aggressor and China as victim that you tell.
        xtian 5y ago
Isamu 5y ago
Amnesty International is just a mouthpiece of NATO?
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  Amnesty international has previously backed factually erroneous statements of atrocities that were pivotal in justifying military action by NATO.

sudosysgen 5y ago

It's pretty simple. If you start from these two premises : 1- All reporting on Xinjiang is rooted in content from organizations linked one way or another to American/Western defence industry (ASPI, Zenz, BBC, etc... ) 2. These groups have, as their modus operandi, used seemingly neutral and informative outlets over which they have influence in order to shape public opinion to manufacture consent. From then on its pretty easy to come to those conclusions. It's empirically true that quite a bit of reporting on Xinjiang is false, and it's also true that the US uses the issue of Xinjiang to back actions that have a 0% chance of helping victims of human rights abuses there but that materially improve the American geopolitical solution. Wether your want to take it as far as xtian did is something that can be disputed. But it's definitely valid to connect the veracity of western claims on geopolitical enemies to US/NATO warmongering.

zepto 5y ago
> If you start from these two premises : Starting from those two premises is the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  No it's not. Those premises are reasonable and many people hold them. They're not affirming the consequent just because you can draw the conclusion from them. It's actually kind of the point of premises, to draw consequences from them. If you disagree, we can discuss where. But there is no fallacy here.