I'm making what are pretty obvious, factual claims. I don't think that any of the factual statements I'm making are even controversial. It's just the interpreta

I'm making what are pretty obvious, factual claims. I don't think that any of the factual statements I'm making are even controversial. It's just the interpretation that has suddenly dramatically shifted in the US and some of its allied countries. The UN Genocide Convention is very clear about what is and is not genocide. There's no possible way to construe a situation like this, in which the population and life expectancy of the group is increasing, as genocide. In fact, describing it as genocide sounds like propaganda. If the Chinese government were trying to physically annihilate the Uyghurs, which is what the very serious word "genocide" means, it would be obvious. We would not be discussing whether or not the 3-child limit was being more aggressively enforced on Uyghurs. We would be discussing mass death. I don't need the CCP to tell me that "genocide" implies mass killing and physical annihilation of a people. I'm perfectly capable of seeing that the word "genocide" is being misused in a highly manipulative way in the political discussion nowadays, and of pushing back against that.