I was wondering if there were systems in place for users to report mods who are just ignoring the code of conduct and just abusing their power of moderator as a whole?
I’ve seen that we could get in touch via Mastodon, but I don’t have an account for that unfortunately and I was curious to know if there were other ways
I was responding, originally, to this statement:
genocide that the UN investigated and found wasn’t a genocide where all the ‘victims’ that were touted are now millionaires in other countries after selling a story the UN specifically found didn’t happen
I asked because I didn’t know of anything that backs up either of those claims. I still haven’t seen anything that does.
In non-authoritarian contexts, it’s actually pretty normal to ask “Why are you saying this, what is the evidence,” instead of just accepting a browbeating message as, in itself, proof of what’s being claimed. And usually, if someone’s asked for proof and then their proof doesn’t match the thing claimed when you examine it, or they’re hostile to the idea of needing to provide proof in the first place because that’s “sealioning” or whatever, that’s a huge red flag. Likewise it is a red flag if someone makes a claim, and then when asked for evidence they pivot instead into a whole bunch of new claims.
It doesn’t look like you or the other speaker are interested in backing up this stuff. I don’t want to play the Gish Gallop game of indefinitely checking out all these new claims. I really did read the report. I don’t know all that much about Xinjiang, so it was informative for me to see it, so thank you. I didn’t see a strong indication, one way or another, that what’s happening either is or isn’t a genocide. It’s definitely not on the same scale as Gaza or Nazi Germany, but it still does sound to me like they’re aiming to eradicate the culture of these people and replace it Chinese culture, alongside a lot of other human rights abuses. The forced sterilization and wide-scale destruction of mosques, in particular, sounds exactly like eradication.
I would need to refresh my memory and look into specific cases because some people have recanted accounts like this or otherwise given very inconsistent stories.
Okay, so you’re not sure whether the report you sent me was accurate. You’re just interested in using it to back up something that it doesn’t actually back up, but at the same time throwing shade at any part of it that says something you don’t want to hear.
That fact that it doesn’t use the word “genocide” is not, to me, a specific finding that there is not a genocide. They seem like they’re just focused on what the facts of the matter are, instead of the question of whether it fits into some specific value judgement or not.
I’m done here. I was just curious, that’s all. Have a good day.
I asked because I didn’t know of anything that backs up either of those claims. I still haven’t seen anything that does.
The UN report you asked for and that I kindly, without thanks, provided, does so, as I have explained.
In non-authoritarian contexts
What on earth are you talking about
it’s actually pretty normal to ask “Why are you saying this, what is the evidence,” instead of just accepting a browbeating message as, in itself, proof of what’s being claimed.
Cool well I am not the person who originally said anything about this and you have been provided with evidence that you are now more or less ignoring and dismissing out of hand.
And usually, if someone’s asked for proof and then their proof doesn’t match the thing claimed when you examine it, or they’re hostile to the idea of needing to provide proof in the first place because that’s “sealioning” or whatever, that’s a huge red flag.
It does match the claim, you are just not engaging in good faith with what was presented. You have literally not responded at all to my contextualization and are now grandstanding instead. Is that a red flag? And again, I am not the original person you were talking to. Not only have I not been hostile to “providing proof”, I went out of my way to provide what was being referenced.
Likewise it is a red flag if someone makes a claim, and then when asked for evidence they pivot instead into a whole bunch of new claims.
At no point have I pivoted. I have provided you with context you help you understand something that is clearly new to you, however.
It doesn’t look like you or the other speaker are interested in backing up this stuff.
I provided the document, explained its relevance, and provided context you help you understand where the genocide narrative is coming from and how unserious it is. I also offered some possible context for what OP was referring to by people getting rich.
You are now avoiding responding to what I said. If you cannot critically engage with this topic, you do not need to take it out on me with these silly accusations.
I don’t want to play the Gish Gallop game of indefinitely checking out all these new claims
There is no Gish Gallop, this is just a topic you don’t know anything about and I have provided you with several facts. This is not a debate.
I really did read the report. I don’t know all that much about Xinjiang, so it was informative for me to see it, so thank you. I didn’t see a strong indication, one way or another, that what’s happening either is or isn’t a genocide.
It is not the destruction of a people in whole or in part as described by the UN definition, which is obvious by simply comparing it to the report. There are not mass graves, there is no forced migration, children are not stolen, there is no substantial diaspora. There is nothing to the narrative. The onus of proof is actually on those making these claims. I have described, in general terms, where they come from, who makes them. Can you tell me the names od the organization(s)? What were they doing before 2018 or so? Do you know why you are even entertaining this possibility in the first place? Where is your evidence? The UN OHCHR didn’t claim genocide.
It’s definitely not on the same scale as Gaza or Nazi Germany, but it still does sound to me like they’re aiming to eradicate the culture of these people and replace it Chinese culture, alongside a lot of other human rights abuses.
Xinjiang is Chinese. China is a multi-ethnic state. Uyghurs in China are not more or less Chinese than any other citizen in China and it would actually be racist to say otherwise.
The OHCHR report also does not claim that China is trying to eradicate their culture. Where do you get that idea from?
The forced sterilization
It is important to critically interrogate this claim. What did the OHCHR report provide as evidence? What are they specifically referring to as sterilization?
and wide-scale destruction of mosques,
This did not happen and the OHCHR repory does not make this claim. Take note of the limited examples provided and follow the rabbit hole of sourcing. It will be revealing.
in particular, sounds exactly like eradication.
That is why the accusers use language like “forced sterilization” to describe the insertion of IUDs and play with implications based on tortured per capita statistics that are far less scary than presented. If you don’t investigate, all you walk away with is the bad words and no sense of scale or impact.
Okay, so you’re not sure whether the report you sent me was accurate. You’re just interested in using it to back up something that it doesn’t actually back up, but at the same time throwing shade at any part of it that says something you don’t want to hear.
You are confused. I have merely supplied you with what you asked for. Don’t ascribe things to me that I haven’t said.
That fact that it doesn’t use the word “genocide” is not, to me, a specific finding that there is not a genocide.
You can of course use your brain to compare what is claimed to what genocide is. I have already explained this.
They seem like they’re just focused on what the facts of the matter are, instead of the question of whether it fits into some specific value judgement or not.
On the contrary, this report was created at the behest of those accusing China of genocide and this is what they were then provided with.
I’m done here. I was just curious, that’s all. Have a good day.
Your responses are combative, not curious. They are about doubting and fighting, often against things I have not said, and you are not asking questions and then accepting or building on the answers. This is despite you admittingly knowing little about this topic, whereas I clearly feel comfortable speaking about it purely rrom memory because I have actually done the work, done the curious thing.
You can do that, too, but it looks like you will need to stop treating this like some kind of debate to the death first.
I asked, “Can you link me to the UN report where they found there was no genocide, and the so-called victims were millionaires?” You sent me a report. It doesn’t say there was no genocide, and it doesn’t say the so-called victims were millionaires. I realize you’re saying that a reasonable person can read the report and conclude that obviously there is no genocide at all, but I don’t completely agree with that. I’m allowed to not agree with you. That’s not “fighting.”
I’m really not trying to be hard to talk to or get you riled up. What you describe as “fighting” or refusing to absorb the information you are providing, I view as just healthy skepticism. If you run way, way ahead of your sources by painting a huge picture, you are completely correct that I’m going to refuse to become passive and let you educate me and believe everything you say. I’m going to take a step back and say, “Well, okay, I get what you’re saying, but what is your backing?” I can do that even if I’m not that familiar with the topic. The fact that you’re so upset that I’m not just believing everything you say is weird to me.
A few detail points:
That is why the accusers use language like “forced sterilization” to describe the insertion of IUDs
This is not accurate. Forced sterilizations, forced insertion of IUDs, and forced abortions are measured as separate things, although they’re sometimes talked about as the related issues that they are. It’s in section 108 which I already quoted.
It is important to critically interrogate this claim. What did the OHCHR report provide as evidence? What are they specifically referring to as sterilization?
Why are you so skeptical, now, of the source that you provided? It’s either trustworthy, when it says that women are being sterilized against their will, or it isn’t. I generally trust the UN, and it seems well-sourced, and you were the one that provided it in the first place, so I see no reason to assume that “sterilization” means something other than sterilization.
and wide-scale destruction of mosques,
This did not happen and the OHCHR repory does not make this claim. Take note of the limited examples provided and follow the rabbit hole of sourcing. It will be revealing.
Yes it does. It’s in sections 85 and 86. I picked one of the rabbit-holes of sourcing, and found https://uhrp.org/report/demolishing-faith-the-destruction-and-desecration-of-uyghur-mosques-and-shrines/, which said “The Chinese government’s current crackdown in the Uyghur region is aimed at eliminating Uyghur ethnocultural identity and assimilating them into an undifferentiated “Chinese” identity. As one of the cornerstones of their identity, Uyghurs’ Islamic faith has been a major target of this campaign, resulting in many Uyghurs being sent to the network of concentration camps. This campaign has also taken the form of eradicating tangible signs of the region’s Islamic identity from the physical landscape. This has involved the whole or partial demolition of an unprecedented number of mosques, including several historically significant buildings.”
It is not the destruction of a people in whole or in part as described by the UN definition, which is obvious by simply comparing it to the report. There are not mass graves, there is no forced migration, children are not stolen, there is no substantial diaspora.
The UN definition of genocide is “any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:”
- Killing members of the group;
- Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
- Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
- Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
- Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
I already said this: I’m not convinced either way. I read parts of the report, and took it seriously. It talks about forced sterilization and family separation, deaths in custody and executions, and other things that very clearly meet the numbered criteria. But is that being committed with intent to destroy the group as such? I don’t really know. But I don’t think that the UN putting together a report which describes it, but stops short of calling it genocide, means that it’s conclusively proven that it is not genocide.
I’m losing my patience with this conversation, to be honest. It seems like your model is that you say things and I accept them, and I’m “fighting” if I don’t. My model is going to be that I’m going to compare the things you say with things I can source, and see if the claims change or if the backing is solid, and then if after a couple rounds of that it seems like you’re well in accordance with things outside of you that I can find, then okay, I become more trusting. If you’re going to get offended by that, I think you’re going to keep being offended by the conversation, and I think maybe this isn’t going to be productive.
I asked, “Can you link me to the UN report where they found there was no genocide, and the so-called victims were millionaires?” You sent me a report. […]. That’s not “fighting.”
I provided the report I believe the other person was thinking of, where they were asked by the genocide allegers to prepare a report on the abuses and this is what they made. You were, apparently, completely unaware of all of this, and are complaining about learning something slightly different, but functionally equivalent to, what you asked for.
And your previous comment was quite combative and had many allegations, including debatebro nonsense that simply does not apply. That is not a curious person, that is a person using irrational attacks instead of doing the work of reading the source material and becoming educated. And again, zero thanks for me going out of my way to provide this information for you and no apology for your poor behavior in response to it. That is not what curious people do.
I’m really not trying to be hard to talk to or get you riled up.
I am not riled up, I am responding to your change in tone and combativeness by pointing out how you are, personally, incorrect on multiple levels. If you want to have a discussion that is about the facts and things you do not know and have no investigated, and try to learn about them, you can drop the various accusations and attempts to rationalize me providing you with information as “Gish Gallops” and other bullshitting. We are having the conversation that you are modeling, though I am actually being quite a bit fairer to and more patient with you than you are being to me.
What you describe as “fighting” or refusing to absorb the information you are providing, I view as just healthy skepticism.
Skepticism is withholding judgment and applying critical thinking to the problem. You are not engaging with the materials skeptically, but in a way that attempts to confirm your priors. You did not investigate the report itself and its source material, but took at face value the sections where it relied on associations to let an uncritical reader jump to conclusions. Oh, and just started adding new claims that were not in the report at all.
If you run way, way ahead of your sources by painting a huge picture, you are completely correct that I’m going to refuse to become passive and let you educate me and believe everything you say. I’m going to take a step back and say, “Well, okay, I get what you’re saying, but what is your backing?”
I expect a curious person to read the report itself, follow its sourcing, see who commissioned it, how it was used, and how it has been criticized. This is not a small topic, particularly if you are unfamiliar with how modern state-funded propaganda operations function, which seems to be the case. I also expect a curious person to reply to the germane parts of what I say, and you have so far ignored most of it. Your self-descriptions are not very accurate. The behavior you are displaying is a combative “debater”, and again, this is not a debate.
The fact that you’re so upset that I’m not just believing everything you say is weird to me.
Why do you think I’m upset? Because I am critical when you behave irrationally or dishonestly? I am not upset, you are just guessing incorrectly and then turning it into rhetoric and conclusions, which is an example of what I am talking about.
This is not accurate. Forced sterilizations, forced insertion of IUDs, and forced abortions are measured as separate things, although they’re sometimes talked about as the related issues that they are. It’s in section 108 which I already quoted.
I was thinking of the personal accounts I have seen, which have conflated sterilization with injections and IUD insertions. As I noted and asked you to critically analyze (which you still have not done, so I guess I have to tell you) these two claims are stated one after the other, but are not actually describing the same thing - the personal accounts and the statistics. The personal accounts allege forced interventions that prevent pregnancy whereas the statistics are region-wide medical procedure aggregates, including people of all ethnicities.
To discuss China’s statistics re: sterilization for the entire region vs. others, we will need to actually review them. If you took a look at the bibliography for this report, you would find that the report itself does not do a very good job of citing its sources, as it is fairly clear that they are recycling original research from their bibliography and citing the sources listed by that work. Unfortunately, the cast of characters in that bibliography are not exactly academically honest and have a history of alleging false or impossible statistics through either error (they often do not speak or read Chinese) or dishonesty.
So, let me know when you have found and linked China’s Yearbook from 2019 that discusses these exact stats.
Why are you so skeptical, now, of the source that you provided?
I provided the source you asked for. You seem to have it in your head that I stand by its contents or something. Who knows where you got that idea from, and I have already corrected you on this idea, so you may want to take a few seconds to internalize that fact.
Again, this is you being combative rather than curious. You seem to think that if I provide a source it means it is somehow associated with me, as in I defend it and it reflects on me and so how could I ever criticize it, lmao.
It’s either trustworthy, when it says that women are being sterilized against their will, or it isn’t. I generally trust the UN, and it seems well-sourced, and you were the one that provided it in the first place, so I see no reason to assume that “sterilization” means something other than sterilization.
You have not critically engaged with the allegations, authors, or source material at all. You are announcing the opposite of skepticism: accepting claims without investigation or criticism.
PS, you should not trust the UN. That is silly. The UN is a political body of competing states and its various organs put out propaganda on a constant basis.
Yes it does. It’s in sections 85 and 86.
Neither section 85 nor 86 claim wide-scale destruction of mosques. They use vague qualifiers like “many”, “recurring”, and “large number” and they lump together several different categories of sites in that list. From how it is described, it could be 4 or 8000. They list the number of sites that do exist for no clear reason, perhaps just to have some large-looking numbers visually proximal to these claims. This is particularly interesting given that their cited sources do provide numbers. One wonders why they did not. Perhaps they realize how absurd they would look? I would hope you quickly figured out what was wrong with their sourcing. That topic seems to be what you are discussing next.
I picked one of the rabbit-holes of sourcing, and found https://uhrp.org/report/demolishing-faith-the-destruction-and-desecration-of-uyghur-mosques-and-shrines/, […]
Ah nope, you didn’t look into the funnier source. Keep looking.
But did you look into UHRP? Tell me about them. Why do you think they would be uncritically cited by anyone? I will just note that critically looking into Omer Kanat alone should take you on a revelatory journey regarding all of this. What is his orbit?
The UN definition of genocide is […]
Yes I know what it is, that’s why I can see this report, note the glaring lack of a genocide accusation given that the US State department and this constellation of hacks cited had escalated to that epithet by this point, and compare even the silly contents of this report to the definition and say, “obviously not”.
I already said this: I’m not convinced either way. I read parts of the report, and took it seriously.
How seriously? Seriously enough to do basic media criticism on sourcing and claims? No? Hmmmmm.
It talks about forced sterilization and family separation, deaths in custody and executions, and other things that very clearly meet the numbered criteria. […]
Do they? What are the numbers? If you read the report, you would already see them acknowledge that China has already had a problem - to which they have contributed substantial resources to combat - with people of varying ethnicities, including Han, being sterilized or implanted with IUDs without their knowledge. Does that mean China is genociding the Han? Are you seriously considering that they might be because of this fact? How many people does China have in vocational schools? Or hell, to entertain the absurdities, how many in prisons? How many die? How do the rates compare to Xinjiang?
You are falling for lazy propaganda because you are, by default, giving weight to these claims without having investigated them.
I’m losing my patience with this conversation, to be honest.
You have no reason to. Certainly less reason than me, and I still have patience.
It seems like your model is that you say things and I accept them, and I’m “fighting” if I don’t.
My model is that you can investigate things you are curious about and should act in good faith in how you characterize what I say or where I am coming from. You are fighting because you are being combative, trying to reach into a bag of named rationalizations (Gish Gallop) to make this an antagonistic conversation.
My model is […]
I don’t care. I am strictly responding to what you are saying and matching tone.
If you think anything I have said re: behavior is incorrect, you may want to address it directly instead of summarizing. You might find out your summaries are wrong!
You’re really demonstrating why it’s easier to just remove comments like yours rather than try to disprove them when you’re just going play Calvin Ball and argue in bad faith
