5 ms·

We can - and should - have robust privacy laws at home. We should also not roll over for our adversaries. China under Xi Jinping is, without a doubt, adversaria

We can - and should - have robust privacy laws at home. We should also not roll over for our adversaries. China under Xi Jinping is, without a doubt, adversarial, and the risks are existential.

pbhjpbhj 4y ago
You need to specify who "our" is there. USA's upper echelons, presumably? The risks are existential to ...? Again presumably you mean those who thrive under USA-centric capitalism? You think the CCP are planning a forced takeover of Western democracy?
- vorpalhex 4y ago
  I think the genocide of a people concerns us all.
  - krolden 4y ago
    You mean like the native Americans? Pretty sure that's still the largest scale, most drawn out genocide in the entire history of our species.
    - hoolabooladoola 4y ago
      Lakota checking in to tell you that a basic reading of history would confirm that you’re pretty wrong. Please don’t what-about the Uyghurs to Native American history because it’s disrespectful both ways, and minimizes their suffering. For all the conflict with Europeans, our historical experiences with them, painful as they may have been and remain, were much more nuanced and complicated than what is happening in China. I have also never met anyone native who thinks of our history as a genocide, and I’m involved in tribal politics. Honestly even calling our history a genocide is a dramatic simplification that removes our agency (all too common in non-native takes). We fought back and won some things, lost others. That’s not something you can say about victims of genocide.
      - texaslonghorn5 4y ago
        despite not wanting to discount your lived experience, I am more inclined to believe settler colonialist theory (drawing on work from trained scholars, both indigenous and not) which suggest that European settlement did lead to what was in fact genocide.
        krapp 4y ago
        I think once manifest destiny and the American Indian wars started, a case could be made. Indian removal[0] at the very least seems like ethnic cleansing, and there are plenty of accounts of wholesale massacres of natives by European settlers and soldiers. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_removal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_removal
      - unity1001 4y ago
        > Lakota Lakota who? A few thousand or ten thousand 'native americans' who are considered native american if they have 1/30 native american blood? ... sheeeshhh...
    - vorpalhex 4y ago
      If you know of any Native Americans currently being genocided, please do call someone about it. Unless you are suggesting that because of some previous genocide we should ignore an ongoing one?
      - texaslonghorn5 4y ago
        modern day native american healthcare inequities are the end of a long running genocidal effort
        vorpalhex 4y ago
        Just to be clear, you are comparing the active sterilization of Muslims in camps to.. healthcare being less available in rural indigeonous areas?
        texaslonghorn5 4y ago
        I don't follow. I was responding to > If you know of any Native Americans currently being genocided, please do call someone about it. it seemed to imply that the native american genocide was over. maybe not, I probably missed context earlier up thread. I was disagreeing with that statement. yes of course I agree that the active sterilization / genocide / cleansing of Uighur Muslims in China exists and is a human rights violation and should be stopped. I'm not going to compare its magnitude to the native american one because one is centuries-old and ongoing and one has been going on for several years (maybe longer, I have not studied it) and both are bad. hope that answers your question.
        DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
        The claims of sterilization, genocide and cleansing are largely propaganda. This propaganda takes a kernel of truth (China began enforcing the 3-child policy on Uyghurs, who were previously exempt - the policy previously only applied to the Han majority), and distorts it beyond all recognition (China is sterilizing all the Uyghurs). Given the public's utter lack of knowledge about China in the US and Europe, it's easy to sell this sort propaganda. It would be so much easier to discuss the actual issues (such as China's harsh crackdown on separatism in Xinjiang) if the US government were not so shamelessly distorting them for political reasons. One almost finds oneself having to defend the Chinese government, because the US government has so little compunction about pushing big lies like the "Uyghur genocide." China did use heavy police measures and political indoctrination to go after people it suspects of supporting separatism. No, it's not trying to wipe out the Uyghurs (or to do anything even remotely like that).
  - DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
    The loose use of the word "genocide" in recent years is extremely concerning. Nothing that is going on in China can be called a "genocide." No one (that I am aware of) is even alleging that China is carrying out any mass killings of any group. The use of the term "genocide" in relation to the Uyghurs is transparently propaganda, which began with Mike Pompeo during the Trump administration. Even the US State Department said they had no evidence of genocide, but Pompeo went ahead anyways and officially labeled it "genocide." You can very justly criticize China's crackdown on what it views as separatism in Xinjiang, but it's beyond the pale to label a situation "genocide" when nobody is being killed, and when life expectancy and income of the group supposedly being genocided is increasing.
    - vorpalhex 4y ago
      They are locking a distinct ethnic minority in internment camps and sterilizing their women. That is a genocide. They are attempting to remove the Uyghur people.
      - DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
        It would be a lot easier to talk about this subject if it hadn't been so shamelessly exaggerated for propaganda purposes. The Chinese government has, by all appearances, carried out a harsh crackdown on what it views as separatism and religious extremism. It has forced large numbers of people to go through political indoctrination, based on suspicions of being sympathetic to the Uyghur separatist movement or of harboring fundamentalist religious beliefs. The Chinese government has also begun imposing the 3-child policy on Uyghur families. The 1-child policy used to only apply to the Han majority. It has been relaxed to 3 children, but is being applied more broadly. However, the Uyghur population continues to grow. The Uyghur language continues to be an official language in Xinjiang and it is one of the primary languages used to teach children in state schools. And as I said before, life expectancy and average incomes are increasing among Uyghurs. The Chinese government doesn't intend to "remove" the Uyghur people. It is trying to stamp out separatism, both by implementing harsh police methods and by pumping money into the region to improve living standards. This is not what a genocide looks like. That term is just propaganda in this case, meant to influence people who aren't at all familiar with the situation in Xinjiang.
- computerfriend 4y ago
  > You think the CCP are planning a forced takeover of Western democracy? Forced or otherwise, yes. This is the whole point of the "making the world safe for dictators" thing.
  - xwolfi 4y ago
    But are you sure you're not being manipulated a bit ? China and many dictatorships, already have enough problems ruling their own shit, you think they want to like ... take over americans ? What does that even mean, how can they even do that when they cant even take Taiwan ? The "Republic of China" Taiwan... All they seem to want is make sure you dont talk to their own sheeps while you focus on yours lol
    - computerfriend 4y ago
      I am extremely sure, thank you.
      - unity1001 4y ago
        Yeah, you people were extremely sure in 2003 too. There were WMDs and all that.
        computerfriend 4y ago
        What do you mean "you people"?
  - pxc 4y ago
    Based on what?
- unity1001 4y ago
  > You need to specify who "our" is there. USA's upper echelons, presumably? For some reason, the random schmuck on the street in the US or the random Little Englander in East End in the UK, think that they have something in common with their elite. As if the former has a few billion in stocks and the latter has graduated from a posh public school...

We can - and should - have robust privacy laws at home. We should also not roll over for our adversaries. China under Xi Jinping is, without a doubt, adversarial, and the risks are existential.

pbhjpbhj 4y ago

You need to specify who "our" is there. USA's upper echelons, presumably? The risks are existential to ...? Again presumably you mean those who thrive under USA-centric capitalism? You think the CCP are planning a forced takeover of Western democracy?

vorpalhex 4y ago
I think the genocide of a people concerns us all.
- krolden 4y ago
  You mean like the native Americans? Pretty sure that's still the largest scale, most drawn out genocide in the entire history of our species.
  - hoolabooladoola 4y ago
    Lakota checking in to tell you that a basic reading of history would confirm that you’re pretty wrong. Please don’t what-about the Uyghurs to Native American history because it’s disrespectful both ways, and minimizes their suffering. For all the conflict with Europeans, our historical experiences with them, painful as they may have been and remain, were much more nuanced and complicated than what is happening in China. I have also never met anyone native who thinks of our history as a genocide, and I’m involved in tribal politics. Honestly even calling our history a genocide is a dramatic simplification that removes our agency (all too common in non-native takes). We fought back and won some things, lost others. That’s not something you can say about victims of genocide.
    - texaslonghorn5 4y ago
      despite not wanting to discount your lived experience, I am more inclined to believe settler colonialist theory (drawing on work from trained scholars, both indigenous and not) which suggest that European settlement did lead to what was in fact genocide.
      - krapp 4y ago
        I think once manifest destiny and the American Indian wars started, a case could be made. Indian removal[0] at the very least seems like ethnic cleansing, and there are plenty of accounts of wholesale massacres of natives by European settlers and soldiers. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_removal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_removal
    - unity1001 4y ago
      > Lakota Lakota who? A few thousand or ten thousand 'native americans' who are considered native american if they have 1/30 native american blood? ... sheeeshhh...
  - vorpalhex 4y ago
    If you know of any Native Americans currently being genocided, please do call someone about it. Unless you are suggesting that because of some previous genocide we should ignore an ongoing one?
    - texaslonghorn5 4y ago
      modern day native american healthcare inequities are the end of a long running genocidal effort
      - vorpalhex 4y ago
        Just to be clear, you are comparing the active sterilization of Muslims in camps to.. healthcare being less available in rural indigeonous areas?
        texaslonghorn5 4y ago
        I don't follow. I was responding to > If you know of any Native Americans currently being genocided, please do call someone about it. it seemed to imply that the native american genocide was over. maybe not, I probably missed context earlier up thread. I was disagreeing with that statement. yes of course I agree that the active sterilization / genocide / cleansing of Uighur Muslims in China exists and is a human rights violation and should be stopped. I'm not going to compare its magnitude to the native american one because one is centuries-old and ongoing and one has been going on for several years (maybe longer, I have not studied it) and both are bad. hope that answers your question.
        DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
        The claims of sterilization, genocide and cleansing are largely propaganda. This propaganda takes a kernel of truth (China began enforcing the 3-child policy on Uyghurs, who were previously exempt - the policy previously only applied to the Han majority), and distorts it beyond all recognition (China is sterilizing all the Uyghurs). Given the public's utter lack of knowledge about China in the US and Europe, it's easy to sell this sort propaganda. It would be so much easier to discuss the actual issues (such as China's harsh crackdown on separatism in Xinjiang) if the US government were not so shamelessly distorting them for political reasons. One almost finds oneself having to defend the Chinese government, because the US government has so little compunction about pushing big lies like the "Uyghur genocide." China did use heavy police measures and political indoctrination to go after people it suspects of supporting separatism. No, it's not trying to wipe out the Uyghurs (or to do anything even remotely like that).
- DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
  The loose use of the word "genocide" in recent years is extremely concerning. Nothing that is going on in China can be called a "genocide." No one (that I am aware of) is even alleging that China is carrying out any mass killings of any group. The use of the term "genocide" in relation to the Uyghurs is transparently propaganda, which began with Mike Pompeo during the Trump administration. Even the US State Department said they had no evidence of genocide, but Pompeo went ahead anyways and officially labeled it "genocide." You can very justly criticize China's crackdown on what it views as separatism in Xinjiang, but it's beyond the pale to label a situation "genocide" when nobody is being killed, and when life expectancy and income of the group supposedly being genocided is increasing.
  - vorpalhex 4y ago
    They are locking a distinct ethnic minority in internment camps and sterilizing their women. That is a genocide. They are attempting to remove the Uyghur people.
    - DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
      It would be a lot easier to talk about this subject if it hadn't been so shamelessly exaggerated for propaganda purposes. The Chinese government has, by all appearances, carried out a harsh crackdown on what it views as separatism and religious extremism. It has forced large numbers of people to go through political indoctrination, based on suspicions of being sympathetic to the Uyghur separatist movement or of harboring fundamentalist religious beliefs. The Chinese government has also begun imposing the 3-child policy on Uyghur families. The 1-child policy used to only apply to the Han majority. It has been relaxed to 3 children, but is being applied more broadly. However, the Uyghur population continues to grow. The Uyghur language continues to be an official language in Xinjiang and it is one of the primary languages used to teach children in state schools. And as I said before, life expectancy and average incomes are increasing among Uyghurs. The Chinese government doesn't intend to "remove" the Uyghur people. It is trying to stamp out separatism, both by implementing harsh police methods and by pumping money into the region to improve living standards. This is not what a genocide looks like. That term is just propaganda in this case, meant to influence people who aren't at all familiar with the situation in Xinjiang.
computerfriend 4y ago
> You think the CCP are planning a forced takeover of Western democracy? Forced or otherwise, yes. This is the whole point of the "making the world safe for dictators" thing.
- xwolfi 4y ago
  But are you sure you're not being manipulated a bit ? China and many dictatorships, already have enough problems ruling their own shit, you think they want to like ... take over americans ? What does that even mean, how can they even do that when they cant even take Taiwan ? The "Republic of China" Taiwan... All they seem to want is make sure you dont talk to their own sheeps while you focus on yours lol
  - computerfriend 4y ago
    I am extremely sure, thank you.
    - unity1001 4y ago
      Yeah, you people were extremely sure in 2003 too. There were WMDs and all that.
      - computerfriend 4y ago
        What do you mean "you people"?
- pxc 4y ago
  Based on what?
unity1001 4y ago
> You need to specify who "our" is there. USA's upper echelons, presumably? For some reason, the random schmuck on the street in the US or the random Little Englander in East End in the UK, think that they have something in common with their elite. As if the former has a few billion in stocks and the latter has graduated from a posh public school...