Do mods or who ever reported care to share the source of this "genocide denial"? My PMs are open
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
I would like to know who and what they did/said as well, I didn't see the original link so don't know the author and don't want to accidentally share something from a genocide denier in future.
The reason it was removed, is because it's by Caitlin Johnstone. She made a Twitter thread explaining the sources of the reports about the Uighur concentration camps (Which is sus take to have—but it's also a thread that was erased on Twitter, and not her words; her stance on the matter is different.)
What I'm wondering is how they're so on the pulse and quick to sniff this out (I checked it out today after seeing the message), but seemingly can't do their own homework on the things they believe.
Like the mueller report people—who are actually harassers (and peddle conspiracies), and yet no one bothered doing homework there, and it was allowed to continue as if nothing.
If there's an official explanation, it'd be nice to have it on record.
Last edited:
(I did not see the message above me. It is now clear what it was about, and no longer necessary)
No, actually. It is good that they do show us what receipts they're working with.
Because saying someone is a genocide denier is a strong accusation. So, if you're gonna PM receipts, I'd like to know just what it is that's being looked at to make those accusations.
Had to go take a look (wasn't actually involved in this one, been AFK most of the day) but this seems to have something to do with it:
Which is... pretty straightforwardly genocide denial, if you grant the premise that what's happening to the Uighurs is genocide.
This a thread she salvaged because it had information on the sources of the info being propagated. Those are not her words.
This is her actual stance:
Do you -actually- have any irrefutable proof that she's said the things happening aren't happening? Or that she's said that people aren't being imprisoned?
What info are you actually using to make determinations? Honestly, more info would actually be appreciated on how you came to this conclusion.
Her stated position in the linked tweet isn't contradicted in the thread you linked. That twitter thread doesn't actually address her stance on it at all beyond "there's a lot of misinformation going around, who knows what's true!" which is a pretty familiar statement from a lot of war crimes deniers when you pair it with earlier statements like the one I linked. It's all way, way too familiar to me from reading up on holocaust denier tactics.
If you'd like to continue this discussion, though, this is the kind of conversation the CCF is intended for. Or we can go to PM. Era staff's sourcing criteria isn't really on topic.
Well, at least it's now clear where moderation will draw the line on this. Can't say I'm in agreement with the assessment, but thanks for clarifying, poodle.
So um...should similar posts downplaying what is happening and has happened to Palestinians and Native Americans be actioned because from what I've seen that doesn't seem to be the case.
If that's the line then ok but that line should be in the same place for everyone.
If that's the line then ok but that line should be in the same place for everyone.
OP
OP
I think there's sufficient information regarding the Xinjiang situation - even disregarding weirdos like Adrian Zenz - to toss out apologist claims like "it's only Islamist radicals getting arrested!" Like, come on, that's clearly not the case. That said, my understanding of the camps is that they aren't Auschwitz style execution camps, but they are still rights-violating, authoritarian centers of potential cultural genocide (I say cultural in this case because - correct me if I'm wrong - it doesn't seem like the intention is to wipe out the Uighurs as a people but to subordinate mass amounts of them to the party's desired outcome).
It seems to me like what we have here is the CCP taking advantage of a genuine problem (extremism and separatism in Xinjiang) to push through a goal that they've been at for a long time, which is the further integration of an outer region, using a variety of repressive tactics. The frustrating thing is that they are genuinely doing something awful, but that outside parties with bad intentions (such as Republicans and those who want to stir up tensions with China) have been spreading disinfo (such as the videos mentioned by the author that are actually from other countries, or that whole thing with the mosque that people said got demolished but actually didn't, etc.) for their own purposes. And that's bad not only on its own but because it then gives denialists more material they can use to downplay what's going on as western propaganda.
I think our task here is to be critical of every power involved, whether that's the CCP or western powers trying to latch on for their own agendas. I don't trust the US one bit in its supposed sudden care for the Uighurs. I also don't trust the CCP one bit in its claims of (relative) innocence.
It seems to me like what we have here is the CCP taking advantage of a genuine problem (extremism and separatism in Xinjiang) to push through a goal that they've been at for a long time, which is the further integration of an outer region, using a variety of repressive tactics. The frustrating thing is that they are genuinely doing something awful, but that outside parties with bad intentions (such as Republicans and those who want to stir up tensions with China) have been spreading disinfo (such as the videos mentioned by the author that are actually from other countries, or that whole thing with the mosque that people said got demolished but actually didn't, etc.) for their own purposes. And that's bad not only on its own but because it then gives denialists more material they can use to downplay what's going on as western propaganda.
I think our task here is to be critical of every power involved, whether that's the CCP or western powers trying to latch on for their own agendas. I don't trust the US one bit in its supposed sudden care for the Uighurs. I also don't trust the CCP one bit in its claims of (relative) innocence.
I have no problem with the idea of banning people who are genocide/war crime deniers. Or even the sources that downplay those kinds of things. So if that person does what they're accused of, then that's that—human rights abuses are not a subject to be reckless about.
But that also brings into question if this is the threshold, then a lot of other things have to go. And they haven't.
As to how it pertains to the OT, it should go without saying but it does seem like we're under bigger scrutiny than some other groups, which is why I bring it up here.
But that also brings into question if this is the threshold, then a lot of other things have to go. And they haven't.
As to how it pertains to the OT, it should go without saying but it does seem like we're under bigger scrutiny than some other groups, which is why I bring it up here.
I don't even disagree that her Tweets were bad, because I do agree that she re-iterated someone's posts without much pushback against them, even calling them "good", even if she does disagree in certain respects. I do think that the posts claiming it's only terrorists/separatists who are being targeted is a false one, especially considering China is a capitalist state, and as we all know, racism thrives in, and I'd even argue is necessary to capitalism. I also don't like the claims that it's just foreign influence from Central Asian states causing the dissent in Xinjiang (to me it's eerily similar to the George Soros/Russian meddling arguments).
So, if we are to ban her as a source, then fine. However, in doing so all we ask is that you apply this rule consistently, and I honestly don't think that'll be the case. That is my concern.
OP
OP
I considered that, but I feel like it might be confused as something NSFW lol
Mr. Nibblelips.
That will be my only comment on the matter.
I have no problem shutting down people downplaying what's happening in Uighur.
But if we're going that route, there's a huge potential for double standards there. For real.
Like, are we going to shut down capitalists apologists when about 9 million people die from hunger every year (worldwide) thanks to this wonderful economic system?
Or does this not count because there's no directed intent?
Because if we are to apply such double standards there, then we're no better than those deniers.
I guess there's always the balance of wanting to keep everyone accountable and not placing a larger burden of responsibility on one group over another (usually the majority).
Personally, I don't feel like there can be justice unless we summarily condemn any and all excuses for the violation of human rights. I don't care what your beliefs, political leanings, or affiliations are. Skepticism and scrutiny must extend to all leaders, politicals, and institutions. I'd rather push for condemnations towards more ideas than reserving judgment until justice is served in another arena.
That doesn't mean one can't be pragmatic and realistic, though. Flaws are inevitable and are to be acknowledged, not brushed aside.
Personally, I don't feel like there can be justice unless we summarily condemn any and all excuses for the violation of human rights. I don't care what your beliefs, political leanings, or affiliations are. Skepticism and scrutiny must extend to all leaders, politicals, and institutions. I'd rather push for condemnations towards more ideas than reserving judgment until justice is served in another arena.
That doesn't mean one can't be pragmatic and realistic, though. Flaws are inevitable and are to be acknowledged, not brushed aside.
I feel like there's a bit of a difference between a system's faults (that isn't a desired outcome of many of us) and targeted destruction and killing of a specific group of people.
Though, I feel anyone saying "I don't care if people are starving" are still shit.
Easy to say when you're not the one negatively affected.
Agreed.
"Our nation was born in genocide when it embraced the doctrine that the original American, the Indian, was an inferior race. Even before there were large numbers of Negroes on our shore, the scar of racial hatred had already disfigured colonial society. From the sixteenth century forward, blood flowed in battles over racial supremacy.
We are perhaps the only nation which tried as a matter of national policy to wipe out its indigenous population. Moreover, we elevated that tragic experience into a noble crusade. Indeed, even today we have not permitted ourselves to reject or feel remorse for this shameful episode. Our literature, our films, our drama, our folklore all exalt it. Our children are still taught to respect the violence which reduced a red-skinned people of an earlier culture into a few fragmented groups herded into impoverished reservations."
-MLK
For example, no goddamn way the Democrats should be inviting an architect of the 'War on Terror' to anything, yet because we can't condemn anything about anything, we just accept it. Just how things go when you're America. It was just an oopsie and the old man is still of use. He didn't mean for all of it.
And where does the below rank on genocide denial, when you award one of the most evil men who has lived in the last 100 years with a distinguished lifetime award and talk them up?
America as a country keeps getting a pass for this shit and we act surprised when something like Trump comes around. Act surprised again when the next one comes.
I agree that intent should be taken into account.
Yet the end result can't be brushed aside because part of it isn't the intended outcome.
If bad stuff happens due to someone's decision, it's still bad stuff, even if that's only an "unfortunate" side effect.
I don't think the argument holds much water or there is much difference when American capitalists and ruling elites enthusiastically take every opportunity to spread this 'faulty oopsie' system in ways that often end up "targeting and killing specific groups of people". Though I can be more forgiving of someone being taken in by propaganda, at some point someone somewhere is aware of what is necessary to keep the gravy train going. America has think tanks on how to sell the public into occupation wars that boost the profits of defense companies after all.
Besides, aren't you the one who says "It's the people who are shit, and not the system?"
Any state of a certain power and size, capitalist, communist, whatever, will inflict itself onto the population and use state violence to maintain and spread its hegemony. The state can only ever exist through violence. Lenin talked about how the dictatorship of the proletariat was strictly necessary in order to suppress the bourgeoise and other outsiders who seek to destabilize a socialist state... but that's clearly not what's going on in Xinjiang. Unfortunately there are definitely bad faith western actors that spread misinformation (intentionally or otherwise) that make having a discussion about it difficult.
I agree though that it feels like certain atrocities are given more weight than others.
I agree though that it feels like certain atrocities are given more weight than others.
It's just a crazy coincidence that all the horrific shit in capitalism keeps getting committed against black people and other historically disadvantaged people. It's not targeting per se, just business!
Anyways, kinda related and on point for this thread, but there was this great civil rights movement back in the 50s called "We Charge Genocide" that brought up a case of genocide against the USA for how they treated AA.
We Charge Genocide - The 1951 Black Lives Matter Campaign - Mapping American Social Movements Project
In 1951, the Civil Rights Congress (affiliated with the Communist Party) engaged in a campaign to hold the United States accountable for genocide against African Americans. Below are the 152 incidents that the Civil Rights Congress offered as evidence in support of this claim. These killings...
depts.washington.edu
Things haven't gotten much better in the 70 years since.
Yeah like if this is gonna be the line then fine whatever but like many have said^: I do not see this being enforced evenly/fairly. much like how every dem candidate besides bernie got special protection/immunity from criticism or the constant shadowboxing/dunking on leftists with the 'rose twitter' crap that happens every day here.
ERA's history with israel threads and having an ex staff straight up denying native american genocide in the soviet nostalgia thread and getting nothing says enough.
I'm also not convinced the article wasn't reported for it's content rather than the author but given how much some seem to hate read random twitter accounts I guess it could go either way.
ERA's history with israel threads and having an ex staff straight up denying native american genocide in the soviet nostalgia thread and getting nothing says enough.
I'm also not convinced the article wasn't reported for it's content rather than the author but given how much some seem to hate read random twitter accounts I guess it could go either way.
I now imagine Lin Manuel Miranda writing sphagnum's posts and I do not like it.
Last edited:
Don't ask and encourage sphagnum 😜. Just pretend you didn't see it.
Listen to Televator
Yes.
Which would further that point. People do genocides, systems(can) cause poverty. People don't (typically) wake up and go "I can't wait to force someone into poverty!" where as people most certainly do wake up and go "I can't wait to kill culture/group X". Just look at US police!
User threadbanned: Disruptive posting in a community thread over a series of posts
The mistake is in my eyes is viewing racism as a product of capitalism instead of human tribalism.It's just a crazy coincidence that all the horrific shit in capitalism keeps getting committed against black people and other historically disadvantaged people. It's not targeting per se, just business!
Anyways, kinda related and on point for this thread, but there was this great civil rights movement back in the 50s called "We Charge Genocide" that brought up a case of genocide against the USA for how they treated AA.
We Charge Genocide - The 1951 Black Lives Matter Campaign - Mapping American Social Movements Project
In 1951, the Civil Rights Congress (affiliated with the Communist Party) engaged in a campaign to hold the United States accountable for genocide against African Americans. Below are the 152 incidents that the Civil Rights Congress offered as evidence in support of this claim. These killings...depts.washington.edu
Things haven't gotten much better in the 70 years since.
I don't really get the insistence people seem to have to view Racism as something that's hard coded into human beings. What's the end game here.
But the tribalism is usually a result of the faults of capitalism.
lol no.
As long as there have been two opposing humans there has been tribalism.
Tribalism isn't "hardcoded" and tribalism doesn't necessarily imply hatred of the other that would be sectarianism
The 100,000 years of observed human behavior begs to differ on either word.
How do you think humans got out of caves if they were so afraid and hostile towards any other human they ever met?