Add Palestine in the US context to the list. Go into someone’s post history and without a fail there is the same shit of russia did nothing wrong, nort korea normal country.
It is just another genocide as a political fodder topic. Fucking disgusting.
ah yes, without fail
Part of that is because Palestine is Russia’s proxy ally so the content farms push pro-Palestine
Russia is actually Palestine’s proxy. It was Hamas all along.
Like how the Russo-Ukrainian War is a proxy war between North and South Korea. We are all just puppets on the peninsula’s strings!
Hey its you!
Not all Authoritarians are Fascists.
That said, I would agree that whomever supports Putin, supports Fascism - there is nothing at all Leftwing in present day Russia, quite the contrary.
China is more complicated.
China isn’t more complicated
Fascism used State Capitalism. Political parties are corporations anyway
If someone questions their religion (like that mma guy who fought the larpers) then they lose their social credit…which leads to loss of income and property
I do think china is a capitalist hell hole that doesn’t even have universal healthcare.
But social credit thing is not real afaik. I personally asked several chinese people and they all laugh at it.
They of course can and will prosecute “enemies of the state”. But social credit is not the way they tend to do it.
Meanwhile the US literally have credit score or something like that, don’t they?
do think china is a capitalist hell hole that doesn’t even have universal healthcare.
Nazi Germany had healthcare…as far as fascist states go it has to be up there
Wut?
Where are you getting your information from?because it’s all fake.
During the third Reich you needed to buy insurance or to pay a private doctor. Many industries had to provide health insurance to their workers like in the US, but many people were left uncovered and healthcare professionals did not work for the state, they were mostly self employed or employed by private hospitals.
There was not socialized healthcare like in most modern civilized countries.
they didnt say it was publicized or socialized. They just said it was healthcare.
Are you unaware of their medical experiments or are you just a holocaust denier?
Yea the social score thing seems like a misunderstanding of Chinese culture.
Chinese culture (and other Asian cultures) have a history of shunning people who have committed ‘shameful’ acts out of their communities.
The MMA guy that the previous comment was talking about was shunned out of living a normal life in China for exposing the phony Kung Fu masters in China.
The Chinese government has experimented with different kinds of social score systems, though most didn’t stick. They do have a credit/banking score system just like we have in the US, too. Still, I think most of this blacklisting just comes from their culture, and not from the Chinese government enforcing social scores.
I mean you can point out that you’re not a fan of Putin but if you’re for diplomatic solutions instead of total war you’re a fascist. No matter if you try to explain that you’re a pacifist and that war is not acceptable and arming for war just makes war that more likely. As soon as you mention NATO eastward expansion as a problematic policy you’re a tankie. Or if you mention that people saw this war coming before 2022 and it could have been stopped. Or if you point out that calling Russians “orks” is racist. Just massive downvotes and the zerg moves on.
There is zero difference between the MAGAts and the leftists in regards to how brainwashed they are. And no I’m not a centrist either.
The issue with bitching about “NATO expansionism” is that at the end of the day it’s still an alliance that countries ask to be members of due to concerns about being invaded or attacked.
and you forget the border requirements for being a NATO state. IIRC, you cant have any active border conflicts, so it should automatically prevent the whole “unwanted nato expansionism”
countries ask to be members of
Countries like Russia in the 90s, which was denied for some reason despite the fact that their president was literally installed by the CIA.
Countries like Russia in the 90s, which was denied for some reason
Denied because Russia didn’t want to go through the usual application process. But keep peddling bullshit - it’s the only thing fascists have, after all.
If there is one thing life as a geek in highschool taught me is that the ONLY effective way of stopping the violence when facing a bully is to hurt the bully back, even if you don’t hurt them as much as they do you.
The bully strategy is: violence, followed by concessions from the other side to stop the violence, followed by a period of non-violence, then one of threats of violence to get concessions, then violence again if there are no concessions or the bully finds them insuficient or simply wants more than they demande and then it all repeats.
This is exactly the pattern of behaviour from Russia towards Ukraine, clearly visible since their invasion of Crimea and subsequent events.
The strategy for dealing with non-bullies was the one tried after the Crimean invasion and the result was a typical bully pattern of behaviour from Russia in response, which is why any Thinking Pacifist has by now concluded that unfortunatelly a response of “concessions” to Russian agression will result in a temporary pause of Russian agression and even more Russian aggression at a later date, whilst a strategy of responding to Russian aggression with the most hurtfull possible response in all senses (including militarilly) to make it be a negative for Russia to act agressivelly will dissuade Russia from acting aggressivelly for a long, long time, possibly forever.
Unfortunately the most simplistic strategy of Pacifism, which is to find a way to balance the interests of both sides, doesn’t work with actors who purposefully and repeatadly use violence and the threat of violence to extract gains, because their “concerns” are not genuine fixed issues that need addressing, they’re goalposts which they move every time they’re addressed because they’re really a mechanism for extraction of gains from the other side.
they’re really a mechanism for extraction of gains from the other side
I have no problem applying that framework towards Russia. They did this for internal political and for geopolitical reasons. My problem is that people are no longer capable of applying that framework towards the US / Nato. That they too, only did this “hey join nato bro!” to get Russia into this trap and bleed them dry using Ukraine.
There is a sort of black and white / good vs evil thinking now that is uterly naive, dehumanizes the enemy and only allows people to see them as fully evil and absolutely untrustworthy and incapable of rational acts. While your own side is absolutely innocent and blameless.
The amount of double think going on is astonishing, it’s not just ahistoric it’s blatantly false seeing how the US is supplying the weapons for a genocide in Palestine right now. But people seem to be able to completely compartmentalize the role of the US in Palestine vs the role of the US in Ukraine.
And then everyone who doesn’t agree with the dogma and proscribed narrative is your enemy. And like you pointed out, there apparently is only one way to deal with an enemy: Violence.
Diplomatic solutions to an invasion that violates treaties?
Or if you point out that calling Russians “orks” is racist.
the Russians also called the Ukrainians nazis, so…
Well there isn’t a single image of the Ukranian Army from the last decade that doesn’t have a symbol from a nazi-collaborating org in it, so the shoe definitely fits.
this entire thread is fucking bait bro what the hell is going on with the internet lately.
China is more complicated
That’s because they found a way to voor communist thought to the most capitalist industry in the world.
Well, they managed to pull about a billion people out of poverty over the last 4 decades or so, which means that mainly they were following leftwing ideals.
(I come from a country which had actual Fascism until the 70s and what the Fascists did was the exact opposite of that: the vast majority of people were dirt poor and kept dirt poor whilst a tiny elite tightly interwined with the Fascist Government gorged themselves on the wealth of the country).
However, it’s been some time since China did that lifting of the masses out of poverty, and they’ve been shifting to Capitalism whilst keeping the Authorianism from their implementation of leftwing policies (they called it Communism, but they never really reached such utopical state, so I’m wary of calling that Communism).
Are they even left of center nowadays? I don’t know enough in detail how modern China operates to pass judgement on that - outside of China we mostly hear of what’s done in domains that reflect the part of their ideology that falls on the Libertarian-Authoritarian axis, not the stuff that falls on the Left-Right one.
I don’t think they’ve yet moved all the way to Fascism, though, even if they’ve kept the Authoritarianism going.
it’s been some time since China did that lifting of the masses out of poverty
China eliminated “absolute poverty” only as of 2020, I’m not sure if there’s any comprehensive report on how the most recent 5 year plan (2020-2025) has succeeded or failed in improving the conditions of China’s poor at large.
Well, they managed to pull about a billion people out of poverty over the last 4 decades or so, which means that mainly they were following leftwing ideals.
well i mean, in defense of this statement, mao was literally psychopathic. As far as i’ve read they basically dropped everything including food production to make a nuclear bomb. Coming from that to industrialization is only inevitably going to vastly increase your standard of living. We saw the same thing across the world, even in the soviet union.
also i definitely wouldn’t call china center of left, unless we’re specifically talking about economic policy, as china is extremely noteworthy for being pretty tyrannical in certain cases around certain things. the great firewall being a good example. Unless we’re going with the modern american conservative definition of left, in which case, yeah that would be left.
Re-read my comments on this thread.
You’re confusing the authoritarianism-libertarian axis with the left-right axis.
It’s perfectly possible to be authoritarian in genuine pursuit of the “the greatest good for the greatest number” principle (the basis of all left-wing ideals) if one believes that only tight and centralized control can achieve a maximal balance of the welfare of people and the number of people getting the best possible welfare, and that individual freedom is not important enough for people’s welfare compared to other things.
(Personally I don’t agree, but my point is that it’s not incompatible to have left-wing objectives and believe they’re better reached via authoritarian methods).
Totally agree on Mao’s character. IMHO what China achieved, it did in spite of Mao rather than due to him.
Further I would say that their long term strategy of becoming the workshop of the World seems to have worked as they’re well in their way to become the next imperial power. It seems a blindness-driven-by-ideology to dismiss their economic rise and its reasonably even distribution across society as merely “inevitable”, especially when there are countless examples that failed miserably to do so during that time, most notably next door India which did not manage anywhere near the same.
There are plenty of questions about the sustainability of their strategy as they become a medium wealth country, the Ecological consequences of it and of lots of the decisions they’ve made in the last decade or so, none of which deny the uniqueness - and hence merit, given that their only resource was people, not minerals and natural wealth like other countries many of which got nowhere near China in terms of speed of development - of what they did achieve so far.
If one takes off one’s ideological blinkers (and me not being American, I couldn’t care less if China replaces American or not as the top power since neither does anything in my interest or the interest of those I care about, so I have no knee-jerk “China Bad” reaction), China looks like a country which did a bunch of things well for a while but did others wrongly and had problem and isn’t performing as well anymore.
well obviously, authoritarianism is a method of governance, you can have that mixed with literally anything. I just don’t believe that china has generally social left leaning objectives, like i said, unless we’re talking like classical liberalism or something, they’re pretty socially conservative, and they’re not super economically left either.
They’re like a weird mix of ethno nationalist (china is not very diverse) and capitalist-authoritarian, combined with social conservatism.
I think if we’re talking about general social status, china is probably doing something productive, though it’s questionable how much longer that will run on for. But general social status is boring.
economically, china is experiencing quite a lot of pressure, as more authoritarian controlled economies tend to do. And this is historically aligned with how their society has gone throughout the years. Things get unstable, they vie for power as their influence starts to wane, and then it accelerates until social collapse and “rebirth” as is pretty typical for all human society, though most places don’t really have the history to show it, so it’s not unusual.
If they can make it out of this pressure, which is debatable, they’ll do well, currently they’re debt farming smaller countries in the hopes of gaining outside control of them through the debt. That could be a significant liability, they have quite a significant portion of debt wrapped up in simply building wealth, which is sketchy and can implode if not properly controlled, similar to the US, but perhaps without the sheer productive capability of the US.
if they can’t make it out, they die and implode a horrible death rising from the ashes sometime later. Probably through a few rough leaderships along the way.
A big problem with poverty status in china lowering is that wages are rising, so china has to ship to a higher quality production base, which they have the capacity for, but the economic incentive to produce in china compared to somewhere onshore, or near shore drops off a cliff at that point. Especially when you factor in stuff like shipping. Ethical product sourcing, and all kinds of other stuff that’s more socially acceptable now. People are generally willing to pay more for a more local service/good. Especially as economic status increases in the west as well. Though that might also be related to bad financials so.
Yeah the big question really is “were those gains sustainable?” which in turn links with “can they adapt to this new stage of their economic growth cycle?”.
I don’t think things are going anywhere as well now there as they did before (it’s even unclear of the country is growing at all for the many) hence why I kept making an exception for “the last decade” in the comments I’ve been writing here about China.
We can come up with a thousand reasons why they’ll have problems and a thousand ways in which they can succeed, but those “what ifs” are just a bit of informed fantasism so I’m refraining from such futurism as it’s a practice riddled with wishful thinking, selective picking of what suits one’s theories and building theories based on an information sparse basis that’s somewhat poluted (as in, there’s way more we don’t know than there is that we do know especially at a detail level, and especially here in the West what we do know tends to be mostly the things that certain political forces believe will make us think bad of China).
It’s hard enough to try and form a fair and honest opinion of present day China and doing futurism based on this shitty informational basis would just be building castles in the air, which there is no point in doing.
So I’m just acknowledging their past success, with the caveat that it’s been a while since that achievement and it’s unclear of late if they’re even still going forward and if they’re even still in practice left-of-center in what they’re doing.
Fascism = far RIGHT ideology; communism = far LEFT ideology
Add Palestinians to that.
Which Fascists are oppressing them
Israel
israel is fascist? Seems weird for the US to be supporting them…
Oh… yeah… cause the US hasn’t supported any fascist regimes at all in the last 80 years or so… not at all /s
most of those have been millitant groups, not dissimilar to hamas, which people here seem to love supporting.
Yeah I’m sure everyone here loves hamas just because they criticize the apartheid state
judging by how many people seem to think that the democrats here are a literal fascists, i wouldn’t be surprised if those people also think russia did nothing wrong, and that hamas is actually just a charity organization, or whatever wrong opinions people hold on things these days.
the alternative being that this is just doomerism which i don’t believe.
Why? The US is well on the road to Fascism.
under trump sure. But that’s only under trump.
The Democrats have been working furiously on becoming the 4th reich, purely out of triangulation
mm yes tringle
Fighting fascism with fascism to prevent fascism. It should be their new slogan
Well usa is known as the fascists of this century so…
i would say of the late 20th century, the 21st century is probably china, or perhaps russia. Considering they had an “ethnic cleansing” of their government. They seem like a pretty good bet.
China?? They haven’t invaded a country since 60 years ago. usa have invaded the whole Middle East during this century and currently fighting a proxy war in Europe
china doesnt need to invade another country to be all authoritarian over them. For one they have their own population to do that with. And secondly, they seem to be focusing much more on getting other countries to hold chinese debt, presumably in an effort to make them default such that they can cut really sleazy deals with them. Also china allies with north korea and russia, they have no need to directly invade a nation.
Also the proxy war in europe isn’t a bad thing, that’s a good thing, it’s effectively a proxy war between europe, the US, and russia. Who broke their own treaty with ukraine. And is also doing warcrimes all over ukraine, unlike ukraine.
I mean, yes, but generally you don’t find support of Palestinian genocide in leftist groups.
i think they meant palestinian far lefty bros who think jews are bad. but ok.
Depends on the country. In Germany too many “leftists” simp for Israel.
Noted for future reference. In the online anglosphere, I generally find self-proclaimed leftists almost always land on the side of Palestine over Israel.
They are called Anti-Deutsche (anti germans) or Anti-D for short and try very hard to mimic fundamental opposition while actually supporting Germany’s foreign policy.
Still there are even anti-D anarchists for example who want all states to fall but Israel last. Everything bad about Israel is bad about all states so why bother with Israel. It’s a rabbit hole, it’s wild. But a purely German phenomenon for reasons
the political party i run with has issue with the slogan “from the river to the sea Palestine will be free” as its voicing one side of the conflict, being propagandized by right wing Zionists furthering the divide of the working class of Israel. anyway i doubt many leftist use the slogan with ill-intent.
I dunno… many on the center-left? Yes, definitely! But don’t give a false impression to @PugJesus@lemmy.world, hardcore leftists even here usually stick to the leftist Palestinian organizations.
Like the socialist Palestinian Popular Struggle Front, the communist Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the marxist-leninist Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the social-democratic, secular Fatah or their umbrella organization, the broadly leftist, secular PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization)
Then there’s the entire, fairly big “Antideutsch” movement that labels itself as “far left” and “antifascist” but is heavily licking Israel’s boots.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Germans_(political_current)
There is a lot of antisemitism and support for Hamas (which is a fascist group) among so-called leftists.
But maybe you’ve fallen into the same kind of trap as those that support Russia against Ukraine and deny the China is oppressing Uyghers.
What method do you use to determine whether you’re falling for a fascist narrative?
My deal with China is this, The CCP is posing as a communist regime to gain more control over its citizens, it is not communism because there is no democracy.
They have elections in China, but yeah, as an outsider it is clear to see that the establishment significantly controls who is allowed to run. I just wish people realized that entrenched solid red and solid blue states in the US aren’t much better.
So it just feel hypocritical when we criticize China for having a shitty democracy and yet we tolerate our deeply undemocratic two party plutocracy. If we truly valued democracy then we would demand a modern proportional multiparty system like they have in Europe
How many parties are there in china?
If the Republican party were dissolved and only the Democratic party remained, would that make the US more democratic or less democratic?
There are two things that need to happen for your hypothetical scenario:
- The republican party gets dissolved.
- Only the democrat party remains.
If “1.” happens, then another party will appear and they’d be back to having 2 parties. Because of the way the US electoral system works, there is an equilibrium at 2 parties, due to game theory. No more, no loss. Depending if the new party is more or less democratic, the US would be more or less democratic.
For “2.” to happen, there must be some change to the US electoral system, which would make it less democratic. It would probably be a move by the democrats to seize all the power to themselves and ensure they don’t have to share it with any other party. That would result in a less democratic US.
So the existence a major party that is constantly trying to subvert popular will through things like gerrymandering, voter suppression, regulatory capture, appointing corrupt judges, and making sure that the rich and powerful are able to do anything they want and are never held accountable is what separates the democracy of the US from those evil, authoritarian, one-party states, do I have that right?
How is having a party that tries to undermine democracy to that degree an indication of a healthy democracy?
Because the thing about democracies is that the people have the power. The people can vote and choose their leaders. Sometimes those leaders try to remove power from the people, and there is people dumb enough to still vote for them.
Those people, even if dumb, still are represented, and that’s what democracy is about. Because if you remove all the parties except one, that one party has no one to hold them accountable.
Even if you really like that one party, they have no reason to stay the same with the same ideals, eventually someone who want power above the will of the people will get a lot of power in that one-party system. And now you have an authoritarian state with no opposition.
There must always be opposition to make sure that the party in power has something to lose if they don’t work for their voters’ interest.
Sometimes those leaders try to remove power from the people, and there is people dumb enough to still vote for them.
How much of it is people being dumb vs corporations financing propaganda and misinformation to get people to vote against their interests? Without campaign finance regulation, the rich are always going to be strongly overrepresented politically, and once they’re in power, guess who gets to decide campaign finance laws?
So I guess just I don’t understand why you think letting these types run amok and decieve people and buy out elections as part of a fascist agenda is conductive to the expression of popular will in government, as opposed to just not letting that happen.
Just looked at that wikipedia article. Those parties need the CCP’s permission to even exist. Sounds more like a democracy theater than actual democracy.
Uyghurs, Ukraine and Israel - you can’t leave out the genocide being committed by a “western” nation.
Love it when a whattaboutism misses the point as succinctly as this
thanks for proving his point
I mean, I wouldn’t regard it as a filter simply because any self-proclaimed leftist who supported Israeli genocide of Palestine would evoke genuine surprise from me. It’s just not something you see very often. This is more a rule of thumb for common disappointing scenarios.
Uyghurs, Ukraine and Israel
Interesting way to list. Victim, victim, perpetrator.
Israel is not a victim in the same way as the first two due to the power differences, but viewing them simply as perpetrator is a rather myopic view of the whole situation.
In response to Ben-Gurion’s 1938 quote that “politically we are the aggressors and they [the Palestinians] defend themselves”, Israeli historian Benny Morris says, “Ben-Gurion, of course, was right. Zionism was a colonizing and expansionist ideology and movement”, and that “Zionist ideology and practice were necessarily and elementally expansionist.” Morris describes the Zionist goal of establishing a Jewish state in Palestine as necessarily displacing and dispossessing the Arab population
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism
Sure, Jan.
A great way to tell if they mean “anti-imperialist” as “against the conquering and subjugating of other groups” or instead just “in favor of anyone that declares themselves to be against the United States and Western Europe.”
in favor of anyone that declares themselves to be against the United States and Western Europe.
make this the primary pillar of your politics and you’ll be right 90% of the time.
in favor of anyone that declares themselves to be against the United States and Western Europe.
make this the primary pillar of your politics and you’ll be right 90% of the time.
Yeah, oppose those degenerate effeminate globalhomo Westerners, king! 👑👑👑👑👑
Imperial Japan rather famously fought against the United States and various Western European colonial powers. Had you lived back during the second world war era, would you have viewed them favorably?
I did say “90%”, not “100%”
But to be clear, the conflict between America and Japan was a clash between two expanding empires. We didn’t fight Japan because of an outpouring of empathy for the Koreans and Chinese.
How about as this meme displays, Ukraine and Uyghurs. Still 90%?
Not stoning gay people to death. Still 90%?
Allowing people to elect their leaders by voting in a democracy. Still 90%?
Giving women the same rights as men (even allowing them to drive!). Still 90%?
Freedom of press? Freedom of association? Freedom of speech? Still 90%?
Similar can be said of a number of our enemies today though, especially Russia. This isn’t to say that we support the Ukrainians purely based on empathy or that the US isn’t still an exploitative power, but just deciding that anyone that doesn’t like the west must be good will inevitably lead one to bad conclusions, because no country does literally everything wrong, and because oftentimes, the enemy of your enemy is just another enemy who’s interests happen to be misaligned with the first one.
just deciding that anyone that doesn’t like the west must be good
Assuming you’re talking about the average tankie, this isn’t the position they hold. Their argument is “America is the greater evil, therefore supporting America’s enemies is the lesser evil, even if those enemies aren’t good themselves.” Russia is about as rabidly anticommunist as America is these days, but most communists around the world support Russia against America because America is very clearly the greater evil. The whole conflict in Ukraine wouldn’t have started in the first place if western powers didn’t back a color revolution to replace the Russian-leaning president of Ukraine with a Europe-leaning-and-also-fascist one.
If Zelenskyy seems like a fascist to you, one wonders how you’d react to an actual fascist.
lmao the mods remove shit you can find on wikipedia as “misinformation”, not beating the fascism allegations .world
showing your ass here
Zelenskyy wasn’t the one elected after the Euromaidan coup, that was Poroshenko. The Ukrainian civil war started under Poroshenko’s watch, directly in response to his government pushing through ethnonationalist policies, such as banning Russian in the Russian-speaking parts of Ukraine.
Zelenskyy was elected on the promise of ending the war. Unfortunately instead of a real politician with a base and a bunch of people who can make things happen, Zelenskyy was a television personality. As a result, he was unable to get this done - Azov battalion, the out-and-proud fascists who were the main aggressors on the Ukrainian government’s side, told Zelenskyy to get fucked after he told them to stand down.
While Ukraine had signed an agreement to shelve the policies that started the war and protect their ethnic minorities in order for the DPR and LPR to rejoin them, the Ukrainian government hadn’t even started implementing the first step of the agreement, and Azov was dropping mortar shells on apartment buildings. This leads us to the Russian “invasion” which the DPR and LPR had been asking for for years, and Zelenskyy being put into a position where his only option was to double down on backing the fascists.
So in a roundabout way, Zelenskyy is a fascist, but it’s by way of association rather than his initial position when he was elected. He could and should have pushed harder to implement Minsk II, and if Azov threatened him he could and should have asked Europe and Russia for help putting down his rogue fascist military battalion. But he didn’t do those things, and instead tolerated their crimes until he eventually threw in with them completely.
Eh, more so when going against Russia and China. They peddle propaganda like a farmer flings manure on their field.
Most of China’s alleged propaganda is just uncomfortable truths for Americans, like that our system is responsible for more death than almost all others combined since World War 2.
I used to believe this until I went on a hunt to support that belief with evidence.
It’s not there. The various news reports are a giant chain of references to other news reports.
Most of them ultimately reference one of a few sources.
Adrian Zenz is one of the most referenced “experts” on the “Uyghur Genocide”. He used to just write about Jesus https://www.amazon.com/Worthy-Escape-Believers-Raptured-Tribulation/dp/1449769063 until God sent him on a mission to take down China. His two big works are “the Xinjiang Cables” (which don’t say what he says they say) and a report where he interviewed about a dozen people for their opinions, took it as fact and extrapolated it to the entire population of Xinjiang.
There are also a series of papers from the ASPI. A quick look at their funding list makes it pretty obvious what their agenda is (tl;dr a bunch of defense contractors).
There was a pseudonymous Canadian law student, Shawn Zhang, who pretended to be a satellite image expert and “identified” a bunch of detention centers. According to him it’s easy to tell because you can see the barbed wire. I’ve looked at the images he claimed to reference and there’s no barbed wire.
Most of the rest of the “evidence” is from organizations which receive over 90% of their funding from the US government.
Is the UN a organization that’s too Westoid to accept?
The CCP bots and ops are getting weird.
It’s worse - they’re not bots, and most of them aren’t fooled by some mass CCP campaign. They’re just fascists, and will go to any length to simp for fascism.
The UN doesn’t claim there’s a genocide in Xinjiang. They’ve gotten flack from people who assume there must be a genocide and that the UN is lying.
It ultimately has nothing to do with “Westoid”. It’s all about the evidence. Mere claims of “having credible evidence” don’t count for much if they can’t produce it.
The UN doesn’t claim there’s a genocide in Xinjiang.
You know what that Wikipedia article has in common with all the other claims of a genocide in Xinjiang?
A complete lack of evidence.
Investigative methods The report was created by the United Nations through a thorough review of evidence documented by the OHCHR.[41] Several forms of evidence were considered in making the report, including interviews with several dozen people who lived in Xinjiang at the time that abuses had been publicly reported.[39][40] The report also focused its analysis on what the Chinese government had publicly stated contemporaneously with the reported abuses, including public Chinese government documents and laws promulgated at the time.[41][42] In May 2022, OHCHR commissioner Michelle Bachelet visited Xinjiang. Prior to her visit, she spoke with representatives of several NGOs that were concerned about the both human rights situation in Xinjiang and in China, more broadly. After arriving in the region, she talked to numerous government officials, academics, and civil society leaders.[41] However, due to opposition by China, the OHCHR was unable to conduct a more thorough investigation on-the-ground within the borders of the People’s Republic.[40]
Findings The report’s findings included that a large number of abuses had occurred within Xinjiang, corroborating academic research and public reporting on the abuses in the largely ethnic minority region.[40] The report concluded that human rights abuses against Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims in Xinjiang are serious and widespread.[43]
Arbitrary detention In the report, the OHCHR stated that reports that the Chinese government had arbitrarily detained Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims en masse in the Xinjiang internment camps were credible, specifying that the actions of the Chinese state amounted to deprivation of liberty and were undertaken in a discriminatory fashion.[39][44] Former inmates who were detained in Xinjiang stated that they had received beatings while strapped to a chair and described undergoing torture similar to waterboarding; the report also noted that there was credible evidence of torture within internment camps.[45] The report indicated that these abuses constituted widespread violations of human rights and that they may rise to the level of crimes against humanity.[44]
Forced labor The report found that the Chinese government’s labor schemes relating to what the government of China referred to as vocational training constituted discrimination.[39][44] With respect to whether labor schemes that China describes as poverty alleviation schemes have involved the coercion of Uyghurs and other ethnic minorities into forced labor, the report stated that there was evidence that these schemes did indeed involve coercion of laborers.[42][45]
Sexual violence and sterilizations The OHCHR described reports of sexual violence targeted at Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims within the Xinjiang internment camps as credible.[39] Women interviewed by the United Nations described being orally raped by prison guards and being forcibly subjected to examinations of their genitalia in front of large crowds.[40] The report also noted that there was an “unusually sharp rise” in the amount of intrauterine device insertions and sterilizations performed in Xinjiang and stated that the Chinese government used coercive means to sharply lower the birth rate of Uyghurs in Xinjiang.[44]
No evidence to see here, the UN is just a globalhomo conspiracy or whatever the latest fascist line is.
Is there any evidence in that wall of text or just a bunch of claims to have seen evidence?
I don’t need than kind of nonsense for an actual genocide because there are mountains of primary evidence.
Fun fact about Wikipedia:
Those numbers in brackets are reference numbers. At the bottom of the article they’ll be listed out (you can actually click the number and it’ll take you right to the footnote) with links to those sources
The UN thing is a perfect way of finding out how serious someone is.
Genocide apologists will say “The UN did not call it a genocide,” or even stronger, “The UN determined it is not a genocide.” The thing they leave out is that the UN did call the treatment of Uyghurs crimes against humanity.
Seems like a pretty big thing for them to leave out, huh?
That’s because OP wasn’t talking about general “crimes against humanity”. They’re making the specific, and significantly stronger claim, of “genocide”.
Before going any further, can we at least agree that the treatment of Uyghurs by the government of China rises to the level of crimes against humanity?
So you’re saying that instead of addressing the issue at hand you want to start with a premise of “China bad.” and just go from there. Great.
That’s not even remotely what I said, implied, or believe. Would you like to respond to what I did say, or put words in my mouth?
It wasn’t the topic of the thread and it’s not germane to the question of evidence.
It is, at best, a distraction.
Twas a yes or no question
And all through the house
Not a tankie was answering,
Not even right now
Had this discussion with a friend today, because the Confederation of German Trade Unions (the umbrella-organization of all German Unions), which he works for, and lots of other workers-rights and left-wing organization, along with the Alliance for Peace are having an anti-war-day on September 1st in my region with concerts and demonstrations and stuff.
And some groups (but not all) from that alliance are having a public demonstration for a ceasefire in Gaza (which is good) and in Ukraine (which is bad) where they will criticize the German military help for Ukraine and demand peace with Russia by making Ukraine cede territory to Putin.
This Russia affinity of the left is so rediculous in 2024 and shows how lost these people really are. It shows they are at least off by 4 decades or so when this stance would have made the tiniest bit of sense.
They act as if they are idiologically aligned but Russia has turned into a worse than capitalism system. When? In the last 40 years!
The “all war are bad and everyone must immediately stop” crowd has brain rot. They don’t understand that some people have no choice but go to war, because they are being invaded.
If all wars were stopped, how would they be invaded?
Because there will always be humans who don’t follow the rules and take what they want.
The link between poor material conditions and crime is well-documented. Poverty often leads to desperation, which can increase the likelihood of criminal behavior. By improving material conditions—such as ensuring stable housing, affordable healthcare, efficient public transportation, and quality education—we can address the root causes of crime and create a more stable and law-abiding society. source
Take away the material need for war, and war ceases to become desirable.
Putin does not have poor material conditions. This is his fucking house:
And just wait until you see the Guest House that Xi Jinping stays at while visiting NK.
Oh, I get it, you’re thinking individually. I was thinking collectively. Maybe we should limit the ability for individuals to wage war.
Russia collectively is controlled by Putin individually. So we cannot morally condemn the defence of Ukraine without supporting War in general.
It probably aligns with the kind of thinking that can assume the MIC produces only defense and protection: under certain parameters they’re right but under others it can be quite naive.
I demand an immediate end to the war in Ukraine whereby Russia cedes even more land to Ukraine.
I predict this will anger people but while I think fascists and auth-left communities share significant commonalities it’s at least a little misleading to call them fascists.
Zizek said it quite eloquently: “[China] adopts the basic idea of fascism, which is conservative modernisation: ‘we need capitalist dynamics, but we need to control it, and to control it we turn to our own national tradition’. […] This is the problem with Chinese communism: there is a direct link with the fascist tradition.”
Fascism = far RIGHT wing ideology; communism = far LEFT wing ideology
They’re basically OPPOSITE ideologies lol
I agree. I should also note that it is not useful to treat them as fascists. Right-wing and left-wing authoritarianism spring from different mindsets and combatting them requires different approaches.
That being said, there are intersections. The most notable are the nazbols, patsocs, and strasserites. It is absolutely appropriate to refer to such groups as red fascists.
I’m of two minds on the matter. On one hand, one can very seriously argue that fascism and authoritarian ‘left’ groups are distinct in their proclaimed thought processes. Fascists very much hearken to the idea of an eternal conflict and a single national leader, while authoritarian leftists, in theory, are seeking an actual end goal of a stable society without a strongman.
On the other hand, in practice, there’s very little difference not only in policy, but also little difference in justification by actual pracititioners. Tankies go all-in for the same cultural chauvinist and hegemonic arguments that fascists do, they just call it ‘anti-imperialism’ instead of ‘national vitality’ or whatever the newspeak neonazi euphemism of the day is. Tankies proclaim that they aren’t in it for eternal conflict, and then break out the death-cult-of-heroism eternal ultra-martyrdom common to fascists and religious fanatics anyway. Tankies talk a big game about making a united front, but then immediately shut down all opposition, no matter how minor the disagreement, as ‘reactionary’ and call for them to be shipped off to re-education camps.
Insofar as there is a difference, it’s like paint of chartruese and bile-green. Side by side you might be able to differentiate them, but seeing either one spilled onto a perfectly good table, you probably aren’t going to care all that much about the distinction; they’re both pretty vile, and both in nearly the exact same way. In that vein, I prefer to emphasize that tankies and fascists are really not that differently, fundamentally and practically, than to emphasize the minutiae of theory that differentiates them.
Fascists very much hearken to the idea of an eternal conflict and a single national leader, while authoritarian leftists, in theory, are seeking an actual end goal of a stable society without a strongman.
The idea of “class struggle” (being an eternal conflict) and proletarian dictatorship (afaik always with a single national leader) sounds pretty fascist based on this definition. Of course intentions matter, but I’d say end results matter a bit more.
Class struggle isn’t meant to be eternal - it’s meant to showcase the balance of power in societies, and how societies form. Class struggle is a conception of societal interactions in materialist terms - ie the question (in orthodox Marxism) is not of “What ideology does the ruling class hold”, but rather, “Where do the ruling classes’ interests lie?” This struggle changes as societies change and ‘progress’ through various stages. Pretty invariably, according to orthodox Marxism, this results in the elite of each society acting in accordance (at least in aggregate, if not as individuals) with their interests - the struggle becomes bidirectional when the working class realizes that it too is capable of concerted action in its own interests. Theoretically, this class struggle then ends when true communism is achieved, as there is only one remaining, united class of significance.
Dictatorship of the proletariat is not, originally, meant as a literal dictatorship - for reference, capitalist democracies are referred to by Marx as dictatorships of the bourgeoisie. Dictatorship of the proletariat is just meant as “A government in which the working class and its interests dominate the actions of the government, to the effective exclusion of bourgeois interests”
But yes, Marxist-Leninists do tend to bring a rather fascist flavor to the table. Moreso, ironically, than Lenin himself (no saint) did.
Their approach to government is fairly similar, though fascism seems to be a bit more strictly totalitarian on average. They also focused their violence towards different groups which makes a difference, although the murder of dissidents is a prominent element of both.
However, they have quite different economic policies with fascists being generally pro-capitalism and tankies being anti-capitalism, at least to a degree.
But I mean I get it, it’s a meme. This kind of nuance doesn’t fit in 10 words or whatever.
Sure. And tankies champion russsia and China. Both ultra-capitalist states.
Hey look guys it’s the one true leftist
Hey look guys! It’s opposing genocide! So radical
Damn, I’m the only one who believes genocide is bad? That’s a crying fucking shame. As if the world didn’t give me enough reasons to be depressed.
Honestly the word gets thrown around so much that it’s lost its power, especially when it’s not backed up by anything other than ‘i know they’re doing genocide because I already dislike the people I’m accusing!’
It’s not something people seem serious about, you’d think if actual genocide was happening in China people would want to share the evidence and it’d be a big thing and stuff but it’s apparently been over a decade of industrial scale murder and no one has anything substantial or tangible to prove it, just ‘trust me bro, my sworn ideological enemies are super bad in secret!’
Don’t you think? I mean off the top of your head name the three bits of evidence that actually convinced you china is committing genocide- you can even cheat and Google
Okay, off the top of my head, without googling:
- Testimonies from people who escaped
- Satellite evidence of large labor camps
- Satellite evidence of villages becoming depopulated
- Testimonies from former workers in the camps
- Video of chained-up people being marched into camps
- That guy who said he bought “halal organs” from China
- That time at the UN when they accused China of attacking Uyghurs, and the CCP guy got all pissy and defensive, but didn’t deny it
people would want to share the evidence
Almost as if there’s an enormous state surveillance apparatus that will black-bag you if you talk? Let’s not pretend China has freedom of speech here.
And I’m sure you could pick apart the claims and the sources, and find biases, and say we should give the CCP the benefit of the doubt, but there’s really no reason to do so–what evidence is there that the CCP have changed their ways for the better?
It’s not something people seem serious about, you’d think if actual genocide was happening in China people would want to share the evidence and it’d be a big thing and stuff but it’s apparently been over a decade of industrial scale murder and no one has anything substantial or tangible to prove it, just ‘trust me bro, my sworn ideological enemies are super bad in secret!’
“There’s no evidence!” cry the people who continuously reject the evidence presented.
Don’t you think? I mean off the top of your head name the three bits of evidence that actually convinced you china is committing genocide- you can even cheat and Google
The internment camps, the forcible sterilization, the suppression of Uyghur culture.
Didn’t even need to use google. Fuck’s sake.
Your three bits of evidence are all heresy based on unreliable reports, but sure let’s just believe anything that fits our worldview without question.
Even Mahmoud Abbas said china was treating Muslims fairly, as did Imran Khan as leader of Pakistan, Kazakhstan likewise agrees with China’s actions as do many other Islamic neighbour’s… People who get their news from the source because they’re connected to the victims involved through shared culture describe it as a fairly standardly upsetting conflict between terrorists and state actors but the further away you get and the closer to the anglosphere the more intense people’s stories become…
I only really realized how much the media pushes stories with no basis because I wanted to be able to demonstrate the stark facts when talking about it, it’s been the main criticism of Americans biggest enemy for decades but the CIA, media, and all the other apparatus of the machine haven’t been able to find anything beyond a few pictures of routine prisoner transport and baseless accusations from people already ideologically opposed to the state - I’m not even joking when I say Alex Jones has better evidence that FEMA and the EPA are building concentration camps and using chemical warfare against patriots, which we all understand to be manipulative lies.
For decades we’ve been hearing about this industrial genocide of Uyghur but their population continues to grow, average life expectancy has increased due to access ro modern medicine, everyone (including women, much to the upset of religious fundamentalists) now have access to education and social support… yes the men who wanted to keep women as property are angry but the average Uyghur lives a better life now than they did twenty years ago so if that’s the definition of genocide it’s kinda meaningless.
For decades we’ve been hearing about this industrial genocide of Uyghur but their population continues to grow,
Literally the same argument Israeli simps use to claim there’s no Palestinian genocide.
You can reject the evidence from multiple sources over the course of almost a decade now over and over again because you want to simp for fascists, but it doesn’t change facts.
The reality is you’re rejecting all the evidence against this because it would make your worldview much more difficult, you believe you know the truth and so reject any other argument out of hand. This is very common, Alex Jones fans believe they have evidence of a NWO conspiracy, your belief is more reasonable because it’s pushed by western media snd political establishments but it’s pretty much the same game.
Do you reject the evidence from multiple sources that lizard people rule the world? Of course you reject it because claims of evidence no matter how repeatedly they’re made add up tnothing if they’re all just feeding off their own fantasy.
Is china heavy handed? Yes. Do I think s lot of their actions in Xinjiang are immoral? Yes. Is there evidence of a genocide, no.
How far have you actually looked into the evidence beyond articles in outlets you wouldn’t trust taking about issues you actually have detailed knowledge of? The guardian has misrepresented every antiestablishment group they report on but you think they’ll be fair to the CCCP? And they’re one of fhe most sympathetic, in what world would the US state department say ‘actually our main enemy isn’t as bad as people say, really they’re fairly reasonable especially xomaoired to our own interactions with Islamic terrorists…’
But it’s also why they don’t really talk about it, they don’t want to get caught in lies - remember the US flexing on Russia with their super accurate intel? They’d love to do that to china and if there was good evidence to have they’d have it. This is why all the big claims are based on hearsay from unreliable sources or wild leaps of imagination based on insignificant pictures.
You’re sure there’s huge amounts of evidence but you can’t think of a single bit that has any substance - exactly like the conspiracy loons when they say ‘Google FEMA Cano death squads’ instead of pointing to their favorite smoking gun because they know you’ll just get lost in a sea of people promising theirs strong evidence but never actually getting round to showing it.
As for people using the same demographic argument for Isreal, Isreal isn’t building schools and providing healthcare the difference is pretty obvious when you actually compare them - but that doesn’t occur to you because you don’t actually know any details about the situation in China, which is weird considering how often you’ve read articles and memes taking about it… almost like they lack vital iLike when he tweeted he’d be hosting a press conference at 4 seasons and they had to find a landscaping company called 4 seasons and hold it in their carpark because the hotel refused himnformation because they only want to show one side…
Yeah I agree. So many people just blindly agree with whatever the US foreign policy propaganda apparatus tells them without employing any critical thinking whatsoever, so much so that I think it might actually be impossible to change someone’s mind on their long-held propagandized beliefs about foreign countries, they’ve gotta somehow come around to opening their mind themselves.
“US foreign policy propaganda is when countries I like commit genocide” - Average red-painted fascist
We are living in a world with an ongoing genocide, and it’s impossible to be blind to the evidence of it. So many tiktoks of devastation in Gaza, so many tweets of fascist Israelis celebrating the violence - and there is nothing comparable coming out of Xinjiang. There is no wave of refugees, no doctors or journalists turning up dead, nothing but a handful of people who made testimony five years ago and have done nothing since.
Even the US state dept gave up the ghost on this narrative after China ended the reeducation programs (because they achieved their goal of peacefully eliminating religious extremism in the targeted communities). The only people grasping to the Uyghur genocide narrative are terminally online debatebros who can’t accept that they were wrong.
We have satellites that can read a license plate in Iowa, but can’t get photos of mass graves … weird.
Even the US state dept gave up the ghost on this narrative after China ended the reeducation programs (because they achieved their goal of peacefully eliminating religious extremism in the targeted communities). The only people grasping to the Uyghur genocide narrative are terminally online debatebros who can’t accept that they were wrong.
Best-informed tankie. I don’t know why I expect you to get the opinions of governments correct when you can’t even recognize a genocide in front of your face because it’s painted the extremely-effective camo pattern of ‘red fascism’.
We’re sorry, this site is currently experiencing technical difficulties. Please try again in a few moments.
That link doesn’t work for me, I was referring to this.
Fucking Christ, you didn’t even read your own link, did you?
The U.S. State Department’s Office of the Legal Advisor concluded earlier this year that China’s mass imprisonment and forced labor of ethnic Uighurs in Xinjiang amounts to crimes against humanity—but there was insufficient evidence to prove genocide
The cautious conclusions of State Department lawyers do not constitute a judgment that genocide did not occur in Xinjiang but reflects the difficulties of proving genocide, which involves the destruction “in whole or in part” of a group of people based on their national, religious, racial, or ethnic identity, in a court of law. It also points to a disconnect between public perception of the crime of genocide and the legal definition in the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which has long been interpreted by State Department lawyers to require intent to bring about the physical and biological destruction of a group.
“Genocide is difficult to prove in court,” said Richard Dicker, an expert on international justice at Human Rights Watch. Even the most horrific of crimes—burning of villages, systematic rape, or the execution of large numbers of civilians—can not be considered genocide unless the perpetrators carry out their crimes “with a very specific intent—the intent, of course, being to destroy in whole or in part a population based on their religious, ethnic, or national background,” he said.
me: even the state dept doesn’t consider it a genocide
state dept: this isn’t a genocide (we still think it’s really bad though)
you: dId YoU eVeN rEaD yOuR oWn LiNk?
I’m sorry that I chose to be concise rather than fully elucidate every single nuance of the state dept’s position. Regardless, my initial point still stands, that the evidence of the supposed crimes in Xinjiang is incredibly lacking compared to the allegations made against the Chinese government.
state dept: this isn’t a genocide (we still think it’s really bad though)
That’s literally not what was said, but stunning reading comprehension, as usual.
Have you ever considered using some of the time you spend repeating stuff over and over on actually investigating whether there’s evidence behind your claims?
Last time I asked for a source regarding the Uighur stuff he just banned me lol. I guess it works on a lot of people to just apply social pressure on made up shit with zero concern about what’s true or not.
Last time I asked for a source regarding the Uighur stuff he just banned me lol.
It’s so terrible that I don’t engage with fascists who argue in bad faith. I really should hand out more asspats for genocide denialism, shouldn’t I?
It’s cool how you can just make up a claim of genocide, then anyone who questions it at all is automatically a genocide denier and therefore a fascist and therefore operating in bad faith, and therefore it’s completely unnecessary to provide even a shred of evidence for anything. Very reasonable.
But that’s about what I’d expect from someone who denies the Sugondese Genocide, you fascist.
It’s cool how you can just make up a claim of genocide,
lmao
Sometimes I wonder, how could all those Germans believe white people were being genocide by Jews when there was precisely zero evidence of it? But the PugJesus reminds me, if someone, anyone tells you a genocide is happening, you are obligated to instantly, 100% accept it, and asking for evidence actually makes you the real fascist.
Still zero evidence presented, at all. You can look at the Palestinian genocide, for example, the one PugJesus is fine with, and see all kinds of images of the atrocities, ditto for the Holocaust, ditto for every actual genocide, and it’s trivially easy to present a mountain of evidence to deniers. It’s just the made up ones like this one or the white genocide myth that there’s zero evidence for, that the believers will never and can never present evidence and will only ever try to play rhetorical games and apply social pressure, while constantly dodging the actual facts. Fascists use the exact same tactics when pushing their false claims too.
You can look at the Palestinian genocide, for example, the one PugJesus is fine with,
lol
You really don’t have anything except a cookie-cutter response for a strawman of what non-fascists look like to you, huh?
Oh, so you’re not fine with that genocide? That’s great, because I’m not either, which is why I plan to vote third party. I assume you’ll join me in that, since you’re also not fine with it.
Oh, so you’re not fine with that genocide?
Wow, after calling this a genocide since even before the latest post Oct-7 phase of the war, you finally figured out that I’m not okay with Palestinian genocide! How quick you are on the uptake!
That’s great, because I’m not either, which is why I plan to vote third party.
“I don’t support genocide, so I’m going to support the candidate who’s most in favor of it” is a really funny way of opposing genocide, but about what I would expect from a fascist.
The best part of that strategy is that makes you feel like you’ve accomplished something, which is really what matters.
Voting third party in the US is still not going to change anything about the genocide in Palestine.
All you are really doing is increasing the odds of Trump winning, which would make you complicit in the total wipe out of Palestine and the destruction of democracy in the US when Trump gets to be dictator for a day. (using your logic)
Aaaaaand here come .ml folks denying genocide
There’s absolutely nothing wrong with denying that something is happening when there’s no evidence of it happening. You can use whatever social pressure or rhetorical tricks you want to paint me as a bad person, and downvote me all you want. At the end of the day, none of that matters because there’s no evidence, so I’m right and you’re wrong, simple as. If you think it’s more virtuous to believe nonsense than to base your beliefs on what’s actually true, you do you I guess, but I want none of that.
https://bjwa.brown.edu/28-1/the-rise-of-global-islamophobia-and-the-uyghur-genocide/
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/04/12/surviving-the-crackdown-in-xinjiang
https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/gsp/vol15/iss1/6/
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/IF10281.pdf
https://apnews.com/article/269b3de1af34e17c1941a514f78d764c
I could provide 20 more sources, but you get the point. Unless you are able to disprove every single one, you are the one who is wrong.
And there is a difference you know, if I am wrong, there is no genocide happening. And boy I wish I was wrong. If you are wrong, you are a genocide denying piece of garbage.
If you are wrong, you are a genocide denying piece of garbage.
No, that’s not how this works. There is no moral fault is disbelieving a claim because you haven’t been presented with adequate evidence. You might as well try to tell me that I’m a bad person for not believing in God. “Genocide denial” is not an inherently bad thing, even if the genocide were real, provided that it has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Your claims do not get some special privilege to circumvent the proper process of investigation just because they are extreme or emotionally evocative. If anything, the fact that everyone on your side is so reliant on the emotional appeals and social pressure should be an additional reason to scrutinize your claims even harder.
The idea that you can just throw 20 sources at me and I’d have to disprove every single one is also incorrect, as that would be a gish gallop. If I told you there was definitive proof that the genocide was not happening in between the lines of James Joyce’s Ulysses, you would not be compelled to read the whole thing to tell me I’m wrong.
Now let's move on to your sources.
https://bjwa.brown.edu/28-1/the-rise-of-global-islamophobia-and-the-uyghur-genocide/
Rushan Abbas is a CIA agent who literally worked at Guantanamo Bay. She is not a credible source.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/04/12/surviving-the-crackdown-in-xinjiang
This article is as long as a book, as far as I read, I saw no mention of genocide and the majority of it seemed to be hearsay from one person. You’re going to have to cite anything relevant.
Extensively cites noted crackpot and CIA asset Adrian Zenz, as well as random hearsay.
The only thing this one says is that the US State Department called it a genocide.
No mention of genocide.
Oh hey, it’s our old buddy Adrian Zenz again.
Maybe I should’ve clarified. When I asked for evidence, I didn’t mean:
-
Hearsay from random nobodies
-
The CIA
-
The US State department.
I meant things like what we’re seeing in Palestine. Or like the evidence for the Holocaust, or any other genocide that’s, you know, actually real.
But I’m highly skeptical that you read even a single one of your sources before linking them anyway, let alone actually investigating them.
Straight up denial of evidence is a certified tankie tactic
Denial of evidence
You mean thinking critically and doing due diligence into investigating sources as opposed to blindly accepting anything you’re told without question? Yes, that is a certified tankie tactic.
-
Maybe this could help. It’s the evidence from the Uyghur Tribunal.
Justification from their site on why they don’t go to International Court of Justice:
‘There is no such possibility not least because China/the PRC, although a signatory to and ratifier of the Genocide Convention, has entered a reservation against ICJ jurisdiction.’
What does this even mean lmao ?
It means China isn’t governed by the ICJ, despite being a ratifier. ICJ has no power in PRC.
ICJ is international law and as all international instance have no power in any country. This make no sense nor does this joke of a tribunal have any power in China aswell.
who let these commenters on the internet? jesus christ i can barely read have the shit that’s being posted here.
At least be grammatically correct when fascist posting.
i can barely read have the shit that’s being posted
At least be grammatically correct
LMAO.
It was probably written like that to be ironic, but don’t count me on that.
we do a little bit of trolling
