Nothing is going to happen now when China is obviously more powerful. Moreover, none of the Muslim countries care, ME countries will happily sell China oil and Pakistan touts it’s relationship with China.
This is my greatest fear for humanity right now.
Edit: Why would this get downvoted? Do you disagree with the interpretation of history (and extrapolation to our current situation), or do you disagree that this prospect is a bad thing?
But those are just my personal feelings; there's no ranking tragedies, really, and I feel equally powerless against all of them anyway. So take your pick on which one you're going to lose the most sleep over.
China's the leading driver of these things right now, by miles.
You don't think nuclear-armed superpowers (like, say, China, Russia, and the US) butting heads might, you know, contribute to nukes being a danger in the first place? Or indeed, contribute to nukes being stockpiled in the first place?
Some care about selling oil, some about economy and so on..
Why should [different religion countries] care less?
(I cannot imagine that there's any good answer to that question)
Point is pundits like Sam Harris are full of shit - Religion is only ever evoked when the ruling party's self interest and the regional interpretation of scripture align. Such pundits also ignore the inconvenient fact that many Muslim majority countries often have very old Christian communities yet the same is not true of Christian majority countries. I wonder why?
What? Muslim majority countries with old Christian communities are because Christianity spread widely in the Middle East after 0 AD, until 7th century AD when Islam came around. Of course there will be residual Christian communities there. But the Christian majority countries became Christian before 7th century AD and were able to halt the spread of Islam post 7th century (Europe), or the country was colonized after the fact by previous Christian countries (USA, South America) where Islam never made it.
We are morally no different than Europe prior to Hitler's invasion; knowingly allowing the genocide of others as long as it didn't affect us.
China on the other hand manufactures much of the world's consumer goods and has strong trade ties with dozens of nations. It has also never invaded Europe and shows no sign of having any intention of doing so. It also has a large enough army and nuclear armament to completely flatten any European country that chooses to break from NATO and try to pick a fight with it by itself.
NATO nations sell arms and political support to countries like Saudi Arabia and Israel so clearly morality is not a priority here. The real reason why they keep political pressure on China is because it's a rival to the USA and it's (at least in it's own eyes) communist - which is worse than stoning women and gay people to death, and bombing children hospitals and practising apartheid in the eyes of Washington D.C.
Things will happen, it just takes time
The question is what now? Western nations have shown no political will to stand up to China.
I never really read timeline details about the concentration camps in WW2.
Well yeah, that's just Winning Wars 101. If the decision is between "let's knock out these strategic targets so that we can end the war quickly and (assuming we know about them) shut down the concentration camps all at once" v. "let's get bogged down by starting with the concentration camps while the enemy continues to churn out arms and war machines and troops because we couldn't be assed to focus on the strategic targets", the former is really the only reasonable choice.
consider that the IDF provided they could get to Entebbe in Uganda at short notice, but failed to muster the moral courage to intervene in Rwanda.
So much for never again.
I'd be interested to see the source material for that.
Regardless, even if they did, I said most people did not know. The president, some higher ups and some people in the military wouldn't account for most people.
Even if the general population knew, not focusing on the camps does not mean they did not care. It means ending the war (which would end the camps) was a more important goal than liberating the camps. Why focus on one thing when you can kill two birds with one stone?
Muslim countries are 99% dictatorships, where the leadership doesn't even care about their own people.
Sad but that seems to be the case.
It’s not just cheap labor. China has all of cheap labor, lax environmental laws, cheap energy, a very manufacturing friendly government, a tech ecosystem, local expertise, and infrastructure. It’s literally the ideal place to manufacture, at least from an amoral economic perspective. Nobody can compete with China in manufacturing except in niche high skill areas.
Even if the camps are just "re-education camps", thats still really bad.
The CCP consider extremism every form of dissent. By that standard, nobody is a terrorist, because everybody is a terrorist.
And the ultimate consequence is that the party feels entitled to do whatever they want to any citizen. Which is again unacceptable.
And the president of the United States himself dismissed Uighur genocide as being part of China’s ‘different norms’.
What you say represents about 50% of Chinese researchers in my lab. Those that immediately return to their country after the PhD and you never hear from them again. The other 50% are the complete opposite: they cannot wait to get their family out of the country and never look back, explaining that the country is ruled by a bunch of crazy psycopaths. Curiously enough, there's almost no interaction between both groups, they politely ignore each other (and they are really polite and professional towards everybody also).
Once a chinese girl was online, we chat about our countries, I explain how much I like china as a kid for martial arts, food, aesthetics, it was friendly and casual (chinese people on omegle often expressed worries about the value of their country, I wanted to make her feel at ease).
Quickly though she started to say it's not all rosey, rules are strict, internet firewall.. suddenly she stopped talking. She typed a bunch of omg omg omg i shouldn't have said that omg sorry disconnect.
It was nothing yet I felt fear in her behavior. All that for expressing very mild discontent about her country. First time I ever felt the impact of politicians on people's mind.. also a 'freedom of speech' felt different after that.
To be where they are now (outside of China receiving education, etc), the former group (or their parents/relatives) fought hard to get benefits from their relationship with CCP, while the later group (or their parents/relatives) fought hard to find a path out of this CCP madness.
And thus the contrast.
My grandfather was a minister and a proud CCP member. But he was the type who believes in doing the moral things and never took bribe. He worked crazy hours and get paid penauts. Most of my relatives saw him as foolish because he basically didn't fight to "get benefits from his relationship with CCP" and stayed poor for all his life. And most of his colleagues and superordinates don't like him because you can't help one another to climb the rank (or generate wealth) like this.
they don't like him not because of the ladder climb, but because him being a goody-two-shoe means that their corrupt activities are more likely to be shown as "wrong", and therefore, more risky for them.
it's like being a good cop in a department where the other cops are bought and paid for.
We just had an attempted fascist coup in the USA and it failed hilariously. The swamp is a good thing. It’s there to bog down tyrants in mud. Efficient government is dangerous.
But my point was not well taken.
I asked my friend from North Korea how life is.
He said he can't complain.
I don't know what that is supposed to mean / why we would assume you'd notice it ...
On HN and elsewhere people mentioned how they were happy people could travel through the area and not have to worry about "thieves" and they'd make some comparisons to travel in the west, a sort of chilling random concern considering the topic.
Often the same link was posted to a western blogger apparently paid to travel to the region. With the link the posts noted that the blogger didn't mention genocide.
Because they have a different definition of "bad". If you follow closely, the mainland Chinese or CCP have different definition of the same word for literally everything.
Why is it bad to force them learn Mandarin and forget about their old language? Where the job markets are and to help them better integrate into the society.
Why is it bad to give them birth control pills? Or reeducating them? etc. They are doing / supporting these regime with a smile on their face as they think they are doing good.
So, as a matter of intellectual honesty, I don't think it is possible to have strong opinion and to use extremely strong terms to describe the situation there as if that was fact.
That's really a common problem when information is withheld. On the one hand it obviously arouses suspicion but on the other hand it also allows over-the-top narratives and rumours to spread, and it is very difficult to separate facts from propaganda, from the other side's propaganda, from fantasy...
In the end (I don’t know if this counts as a spoiler or not) Kertész even admits to feeling nostalgia for some of the moments in the camps.
I appreciate the western style of logical thinking. You are being taught in schools how to tell the truth and bust lies, to criticize, to doubt, to ask questions no one dares to ask. You are taught definitions of fallacies, the art of debate, the wisdom of introspection.
I envy you, having been taught so many ways to learn, to listen, to ask.
You know, in China, they don't teach you those. They fill you with hard knowledge, 1+1=2 kind of knowledge. There's always only one correct answer: the answer from the textbook, from the instructor, from the authority. No question is asked unless you forgot what you should have memorized.
I envy you, having the freedom to argue 1+1=0 and discover binary.
As Chinese, we've been taught to believe, to repeat, to bow down to seniors, teachers, authorities.
It's the way of life here.
It's also the reason I came to the US.
And yet, here we are.
"You cannot trust anything reported out of China."
"No use in trying to discuss this anyone from China. They are totally brainwashed."
Do you hear the racists in these words? Do you feel the rejection of listening, the denial of communication, the blockage of thinking in those expressions?
Chinese are liars. -- is what they want to say.
Because the west has free speech and free press, so everything the western media report must be the truth. -- is what they believe.
Folks, where is your doubt? Where is your wisdom of knowledge?
Just because Chinese people were taught to remember the only answer, doesn't mean they can't think critically. Have you ever listened to them? Are you dismissing them just because of where they were born or how they were taught?
Just because you have a free press, doesn't mean your media is unbiased. Who are their sponsors? What political spectrum do they stand for? Is it economically or politically beneficial to talk trash about China?
Now you have to ask: What's your defense for the CCP? How brainwashed are you? Do you condemn the CCP for what they alleged doing?
My answer is simple: I will stay doubtful until I have first-hand contact or undeniable evidence showing one way or the other. Until then, I can't say if those allegations are real or not. If they were real, I (and I believe most Chinese people) would condemn the practice, and would like to demand a change.
"I know people who live in Xinjiang and they say it's not that bad."
-- It's a very common argument lot of Chinese people would use. Because it's relatively easy to find people living in Xinjiang or who come from Xinjiang online. Me too, had several conversations with folks from the area, some on Telegram where they were using VPN to connect, and some are friends of friends. Of course, we would talk about the headlines all over the western media. And every time, the answer I got is they are still working, living, studying as normal. There were conflicts in some areas in the southern part, but I haven't got any more detail than that.
These conversations are not proof of China not doing what it's been alleged to do. But you have to understand it's much more difficult to prove something you didn't do instead of something you did, and yet these kinds of personal encounters are the closest things we have to give us a perspective of the situation in the area.
To think back, what is the closest encounter you had to the situation in Xinjiang? Did you talk to any victim from the area? Of course, you would immediately argue that CCP wiped clean all witness and evidence, so finding a victim is almost impossible, which is another allegation that's almost impossible to prove otherwise --- how convenient of you.
But anyway, the closest encounter of yours is almost always the media stories you read, from western media, all over the places. But have you ever doubt that why all stories about China are negative? Why people are saying things to discredit every word comes out Chinese people's mouth? Doesn't it feel strange to you?
And it's not easy for someone to speak up for China either. I -- writing these words, am seriously worried about losing my job in the US just because of this. So I'm using an alias account. YouTubers that speaking up for China are constantly being depromoted, demonetized, restricted for sharing, or banned for their words. Is it free speech should look like? Is the west deliberately running some kind of campaign to discredit and disconnect China from the rest of the world?
Of course, that's an allegation without concrete proof. But you can find it is logically sound. There are many political movements and campaigns by the US and other five eye countries trying to contain the political and economical development of China - so their countries can continue to sit on top of the world's hegemony. It's not strange that these political and economical campaigns had affected public opinion and implanted negative views of China in its citizens' minds.
We can have a lot of allegations back and forth. Maybe they are all wrong - or all true. But the bottom line is, what kind of thinking you want to promote.
If you are spreading denial and racism, I would condemn you regardless if your arguments are true or not.
Please, don't let a Chinese person point out your fallacies. We were supposed to not learned that.
"You cannot trust anything reported out of China"
"Not all things reported out of China can be trusted"
But the language you choose to use has its emotional implication. Ask any Chinese, which of the two sentences is more biased.
"You cannot trust anything reported out of China" = "Nothing reported out of China can be trusted",
"You cannot trust something reported out of China" = "Not all things reported out of China can be trusted"
I had a similar reaction back in 2010 when talking to a scientist from Libya (during the internal conflict). He was in real shock of what's been known for ages of his country in the west. Of course it doesn't mean everything in the western media is wrong. But he knew some facts that had simply not surfaced at all in people's view. I have a similar feeling now.
Most Uyghurs don't even speak your language. That generalization of well-connectivity doesn't apply at all. Unless you speak Äynu, you are likely talking mostly with Han Chinese in Xinjiang (or Uyghurs who had undergone severe Sinicization).
> It's almost impossible to hide any major events in China, even with large scale blockage
It is impossible to hide "major events" only when jounralists are free to roam around in China.
I have a jounralist friend whose grandfather was a Chinese war hero (i.e. he is a 红三代). He is now a US citizen, and works for a respectable news media. He had internal CCP connections but were denied Chinese visa when he was working on the Uighur story in 2017. This had never happened before, even when he was investigating the controversial story with Bo Xilai.
I don't see how the journalist story relates to this. I know exactly the kind of profile he has. Most people in/out of China know the limit of political freedom and the sensitivity changes according to political tides. It'll be quite strange that he pretends he didn't know the severity. But that's exactly my point: these events muddle the water and hide the real serious issues.
This struck a chord with me. I think most people who read news regularly can agree that nearly 100% of the news about China these days are negative, and never anything positive. We can all wonder why that is.
That's only relevant if you compare it to other topics and there's a discrepancy. There's very little positive content in the political news I read, even when it's about Western countries. If something works or is going well it's almost not news by definition, at least it's less likely to appear on the front page.
Of course it's political as well, but there's no way around that.
These are real people. They aren't Western "plants", and it would be a pretty big conspiracy for them to all coordinate and "lie" about the things they detail. Sure, western media is biased, but I would still trust it a lot more when reporting on such matters than Chinese media because the latter have a lot more to lose and are also single-mindedly focused on controlling the narrative when it comes to any sort of press or public release of information because ultimately they are an extension of the Chinese government in a very direct way.
Or the Nayirah case: "In her emotional testimony, Nayirah claimed that after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait she had witnessed Iraqi soldiers take babies out of incubators in a Kuwaiti hospital, take the incubators, and leave the babies to die." Which was all a lie, but a convenient argument for the Iraq war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_testimony
I certainly think it is possible that these atrocities actually happen in China, OTOH it fits all too well into the anti-China warmongering in the US.
She isn't an actor. She's a bit of a conspiracy theorist type from Hong Kong on the Wuhan lab leak stuff. I'm not sure how that's relevant to anything much here beyond that it pays to check your sources.
You know, even average schools in China looks more like a prison than actual prisons in the west. (Which remind me of this: https://www.schoolprison.com/ )
You will often find 8-12 students packed in a small 10-20m^2 room with thousands of students in each building. Many schools would also have fences or walls all around to prevent students from escaping. Some photos:
These re-education camps/concentration camps (whatever you call them) are surely a downgrade from average schools because they are completely out of the government's pocket and constructed in a short period.
Only that, can seem inhumane to many people in developed country, even exaggerated by some BBC documentary, but it's just a reflection of average living condition in China.
It's not difficult to realize part of the CCP's narrative must hold some truth -- the Xinjiang situation was mostly a response to the non-stopping terror attacks in the region for the last couple of decades. And depending on the "radicalization level" of the people being contained, the security level of these camps must be ranging from a lot more usual to heavily guarded.
So yes, there will be prison-level camps and many near-prison-level camps.
I believe most of these incidents reported by western media are conducted independently by the officials in the camps under stricter lock-down, which provided an out-lawed environment for them to conduct the crimes. However, I don't believe any of these are systematically orchestrated and oversaw by the CCP from the top down. If you argue otherwise, you better provide some strong proof, i.e. recording of high-rank CCP officials admitting such an evil plan. Because it's a very, very serious allegation.
Those individuals who conducted these crimes are directly responsible for what they did and must be held responsible. There also must be regulations on these camps to make sure incidents like these never happen again.
Then where's the justice held? You must then ask. I don't have a solid answer to it. I hope those responsible already got what they deserve. But those verdicts probably won't be made public. You surely can understand why given the heat on all of this.
But I'm more confident that the CCP has placed better regulation on all the camps to prevent such incidents from happening again. The reason is CCP has invited western reporters to visit and investigate on the ground. Of course, they probably won't find any evidence that those incidents ever happened, but they will be shown with all the regulations of these places to a degree that no problem can be found. Surely western reporters also understand that very well -- most haven't responded to the invitation because they know they won't be able to dig more dirt on this.
Another level of discussion is whether it's humane to force/mandate people to attend re-education camps. If you want we can get into that as well.
I think if you really want to help people in those camps, you should start talking about donations, improving their living conditions, providing educational resources, even collaboration on education projects, help them graduate/get out of there, and get a job sooner.
I want to show some folks on HN, even with Chinese people, you can have a civil and reasonable conversation on controversial topics. We are not liars, nor monsters without compassion. We are also normal people, just like you. It's completely up to you to listen or deny.
Regulations are not worth much without enforcement. Enforcement requires inspections to verify regulations are being followed and punishment if they're not. But if the regulations are not being followed, then cheating the inspections is another way to avoid punishment. It's much cheaper to put on a show for the inspectors than to make permanent improvements. So a lot of cheating is to be expected.
How does CCP define terrorists? Do they show you how do they investigate then decide they are terrorists?
CCP can define any attacks as terrorist. In case it's a revolt against inhumane treatment, can they say they are under terroristic attack from CCP?
The Chinese crackdown on Xinjiang goes back well beyond the terror attacks. There used to be a secular, non-violent Uighur movement for their rights, including Uighur communists who simply wanted the right to use their own language at all times and not Chinese, like the laws ostensibly allow. However, in the 1980s and 1990s the Beijing regime imprisoned many of those activists or sent them into exile. At the same time, Han settlers were entering the area even though it was clear that this would change the region’s demographics.
Once the secular and non-violent activism was shut down, there arose out of desperation new trends that were violent and/or Islamist. But that doesn’t mean the CCP’s policy of Uighur assimilation and Han settlement didn’t come first.
Another observation I have is that there's little mention of the history of Xinjiang itself. The long-standing threat from Russian influence starting from before Republic of China (ROC) period. And the autonomous Muslim defense against russian puppet gov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_rebellion_in_Xinjiang_... and even the later alliance with the communist party. Sure you could argue from one-side that all that is happening is wrong but unfortunately a lot of the evidence today are from anti-china alliance such as epoch times, which in my opinion really hides the real issues of the chinese society.
However I do agree with you, for the opposite it might well see han population as a threat, probably right from the early dynasties. I have by no means implied Russian influence is 'evil', it is simply the historical narrative. It is only natural that from 1900s the powers around that area want to take control in the geopolitics. Same situation today.
My point is that if you understand the situation better (which is hard because of language / culture barriers, similar to middle east crisis), you might be able to know more nuances of the issue.
The whole site is very good - and the independent journalist speaks Chinese and is fairly unbiased (excerpt from site "the US makes a big deal out of the treatment of Muslims in China while underwriting genocide in Yemen"). Especially the analysis on the leaked documents .
> Surely western reporters also understand that very well -- most haven't responded to the invitation because they know they won't be able to dig more dirt on this.
Here's another view point. CCP is anti democracy. Any Chinese citizen who oppose the authority of CCP must be encouraged in the interest to promote democracy.
That doesn't mean there isn't a strong correlation with the country and it's political leaders. In my opinion, a country may be judged by it's leaders.
Do you think the authorities could be more transparent about what is happening in these regions?
But that doesn't mean they will ignore the problem, but on the contrary, they always take care the situation swiftly and always show off their results one way or the other. If you know China enough you should be familiar with how they operate.
What matters is they are giving all the resources to the people in the camp, and implementing strict regulation and accountability for all the activities in the camp, to make sure everything is running humanely and lawfully.
And yet you trust them to do the right thing. I think that's where most of the disagreement comes from. A politician in the Western world who would try to avoid transparency would be suspect, we would think they did something wrong. I think westerners tend to judge the CCP on the same basis, but apparently you trust them.
What have they done to earn your trust?
How do you make sure that they don't abuse this trust (especially without transparency)?
Surely it would be possible for them to lose your trust, if they abused it. What kind of situation would that be?
I think it's more a question of having bad medias (that can and did lie) is probably easier to trust than having no medias. Big communist countries (and other non communist, like Tunisia or some middle east ones) had a history of removing journalists.
Please don't accuse people you disagree with of being a shill or someone paid for making the comment. It's against HN rule.
And of course Weibo search doesn't work for Uyghur content. Try finding this post using any of the words in it: https://m.weibo.cn/detail/4606432605644442 I found it by searching for Uyghur words in Latin script to find someone posting in Uyghur, then looking through their posting history.
I think Weibo is pretty much useless as a source of unfiltered information, unless you're already a heavy Weibo user and can just stumble across things instead of having to rely on search.
They haven't been a threat for centuries.
> Not the USSR?
The USSR's been dead for 3 decades now.
> Not even, y'know, the ancient chinese empires who subjugated most of asia?
They don't exist anymore, either.
In fact, if the upthread point had labelled the PRC the greatest threat to global freedom of the past three decades, then I'd be inclined to agree! But that's not what it said. And we made it through the cold war just fine.
I could say the same about your own grasp of the point; it doesn't seem relevant at all to bring up historical examples of threats to global freedom when we're discussing current examples of threats to global freedom - the PRC pretty unambiguously being one of them (and the US being another, to be clear).
One shouldn't lump all antagonism towards a government together as a single thing.
You can live in China, think the US government has a history of war crimes, subjugation, imperialism, plunder, genocide, and geopolitical treachery, and yet not want to go to war with the US.
You can live in the US, think the Chinese government is engaging in genocide and creating an uniquely dystopian surveillance state where all thought and behavior can be monitored and shaped, and yet not want to go to war with China.
I'm sure this trap is a real phenomenon, but pretty much every large human empire has been powered by a helm regularly committing horrible atrocities, so one hegemon will probably always be able to legitimately condemn a up-and-comer, and vice versa.
I think it can be a bit dangerous to counter such discussion with accusations of war-seeking, because it lets rulers get away with more than they should. At least unless you have specific evidence suggesting the discussion isn't simply a case of people who are genuinely concerned about people for humanist reasons.
Does anyone think the USA actually cares about central asian muslims? With our record and the records of our allies?
Or is this coming from collective anxiety over being eclipsed?
So to answer your question, yes to the former question. Maybe yes to the latter question too, but as an "and" not an "or".
Not sure that's a true statement.
I mean, that’s kind of a human thing.
Think Iraq, all the evidence of WMD
To me it sounds like they're saying we ought to be wary of the threat China poses to freedom. If they thought we should go to war they would say so. I only see people here calling for awareness and preparedness, not war.
Could things get worse? Sure. But all I'm saying is that things have already been much, much, much worse. And we came out OK.
Actually, both the guy who coined that phrase and others did:
They simply are more "free", by any reasonable standard, than their grandparents in the PRC or their compatriots behind the iron curtain. Quite frankly they're more free to express inconvienent opinions than most minorities were in the US for most of the 20th century.
The PRC government does some awful things. But the kind of hyperbolic nonsense we're engaging in here isn't helping the situation.
How so? Its ability to expand its control beyond its current reach is pretty limited. It is surrounded by the lands and military forces of Russia, India, and the US and its client states like Japan and South Korea.
You can misspeak. Therefore, it's impossible for you to tell others what is perfect speech. That's all the Bill of Rights and freedom of speech is. It's unavoidable.
The best lessen enemies in times of contention, not create them. The USA took the gift of the New World and said if we're going to tell other people what to do, what's the minimum we have to do? We don't need to crush riots or deprogram people. Hundreds of cities burnt down in the USA due really dirty political tricks, and we left it alone. If people want to lead in the USA, they have to find a way themselves to overcome it without relying on tyranny, oligarchy or anarchy.
Should Big Tech be accountable for all the content they publish, then? However, since they are not the authors of the content they publish, should their responsibility be something comparable to the responsibility of a traditional newspaper on its classifieds section?
I would argue that the will of the websites is to actually allow publishing for the most amount of people. And they censor the opposing political views only because the government-aligned forces make them to. Basically if every corporation needs the government to survive they are going to do everything the government wants, even if they don’t admit to it. They would rather lose half the users than become completely defunct.
If US citizens already have a hard time discerning this imagine someone from China.
It’s amateur capital driven censorship. It’s inefficient, confusing, and divides a nation. Yes it would be viewed as suboptimal from someone familiar with nationalism and censorship in China.
I don't think China will forever sustain that large a monitoring, it's just inefficient the closer they get from an intellectual super power, but I have 0 respect for the US, or their "freedom of being an idiot" that they pretend is the same as freedom of speech.
One thing is sure, with that circus over there, they made us lose 10 years here. Nobody wants to experiment anymore with liberalization.
It's fine, people can make collective mistakes, but I think we ignore several facts during a referendum like that:
- People misunderstand the question
- People understand the question but vote to answer another one
- People are divided in groups with very different agenda that sometimes are shorterm good for a majority and long term bad for a minority (the elders might vote against the interest of the youth, then die leaving them with the mess)
I vote, and enjoy it, but I also recognize I'm as big an idiot as anyone else, and I don't think this worked in the Brexit instance. The PM proposed the vote for the wrong reason, people voted at a time they were not thinking of the Union long term, people voted massively divided (cities vs country side, England vs the others, old vs young), so what answer did they provide exactly ? That "the people want rid of the EU" or that "British society is so divided it barely even exists" ?
I guess at least in a democracy, mistakes can be reversed, but we seem to do so many I wonder if it's not better here where at least we stick to one single side and pursue it to the end rather than girouette around (in the EU, but with not everything, then out, then surely in again because out was stupid, etc).
Americans aren't very interested in defending human rights, but they're deeply invested in defending the lie that they are interested in defending human rights.
Not saying I have any clue about Xinjiang or that the CCP is positive for the country, but I feel uneasy everyone switched from prisoner camps to genocide - it seems to distract away from the actual issue to move into borderline hysteria.
A bit like the HK situation moved from an extradition issue over a taiwan murder to a large "save Hong Kong" hysteria... But whatever, you used the racist card, what can we say ...
The Chinese gov doesn't care and doesn't want to care, they are being bamboozled by the true winners of the situation: the DAB party using the communist paranoia to consolidate their local power acting as good little patriots (when every law they passed is anti-communist, really, and pro-status quo).
So the DAB suspended the legislative election after they lost the district one, for one year. They can act like that with the blame being directed at China by constantly looking the other way when asked to give an opinion about China and acting as if they were under order. But it serves 0 chinese interest, it makes the entire population hate China and China hate the population, with the DAB cementing itself into the only barrier still there before the army intervenes.
It's so obvious yet so missed by everyone that it's painful to watch. I hope there's a masterplan in Beijing, but I doubt they even understand what people think in Beijing, let alone in Hong Kong, so ...
And the DAB represents a large class of the population, too: the elders, the rent-owners, the large corporations, the traditional post-colonial Hong Kong. That's the people you see on the sideline shaking their head and taking picture in mass when the kids burn a metro station. The journalists don't film it, but I'm there with everyone just commenting at the monkeys while the western media stream them with a close angle as if they were fighting China or for freedom... While nobody is communist in Hong Kong, not even the metro station they hate so much !
I saw my entire family switch to the DAB during the protests so maybe I'm under bias thinking this produced exactly the opposite effect all sides looked for: Hong Kong is not more independent, Hong Kong is not more Chinese, but the DAB sure is more powerful - we'll see what happens if they restore the election, but at this point they can get away with not doing it and say "oh but without us it's the PLA so calm down"
The evidence for most of these accusations come from Adrian Zenz and ASPI. The report says:
> the works of Dr Zenz, ASPI and similar others would be accorded significant weight and would have probative value in establishing the relevant facts.
Adrian Zenz is the key source for almost all of the genocide claims but I think him and his claims should be scrutinized. The Grayzone did a very critical analysis of Zenz and his claims that is worth exporing if you are actually interested in this subject. https://thegrayzone.com/2021/02/18/us-media-reports-chinese-...
I think global attention could help the people of Xinjiang, but not if it’s hijacked by western governments who have an axe to grind with China.
This is the single most dodgy looking url I've ever shared.
"Despite the Trump administration’s declaration of a genocide in Xinjiang, upheld by the Biden administration, some legal experts suspect China’s behavior may fall short of actual genocide."
This opinion by those legal experts with their nitpicky definitions of 'actual genocide' is probably related to the absolute lack of any mass casualties. Not that such technical concerns should stand in the way of nationalist rhetoric.
The Uyghurs, in fact, have a higher allotment of children than Han Chinese. Which is.. the opposite of genocide, really, if you're letting their population grow more than the "non-genocided" population.
Just for the record: as per the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide , genocide is officially defined as either physical _or_ mental harm.
Mass extermination is obvious, but here's another way to destroy a nation: through the deepest, most unutterable form of demoralization.
And I think the reason it's not more in the headlines is precisely because of its nature: we don't want to think about this kind of act, on a mass scale, perpetrated by one of the most powerful nations in the world, indirectly supported by Western economies and politics.
The BBC report is considered credible. The best thing we can do is to spread it, and hope it becomes viral - so that business with China becomes absolutely socially unacceptable.
In the US at least, we are not taking this problem seriously enough. There's a lot of acknowledgement that something bad is happening, but not a lot of clear coordination on an international scale to actually stop it. I am generally a non-interventionist, but this is an area where we need to get more involved and we need to be more forceful about pulling the economic and social levers that we have at our disposal.
It still feels like we're just treating this like "problematic" behavior from a contentious ally, rather than a genocide. At least in the US, we are still not really grappling with the gravity of that word.
We’re a confused divided country and China has a brutally efficient system of exploitation the US needs.
The USA doesn't need the competition. Leave us alone please, for just once in our history. Our entire existence, the world has waged war against us.
Imaging black holes. Probes inside the Sun. Ever growing size of matter waves. Find peace please, or I build a horrible weapon of coarse resuscitation, a gravity application of pair production and coherent control that doesn't kill, but keeps people alive.
For the most recent part of it, it has rather been the inverse.
> 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, placing the United States’ top diplomatic lawyers at odds with both the Trump and Biden administrations, according to three former and current U.S. officials.
This article isn't disagreeing with that, it's not debating that the State department over-exaggerated or misrepresented the extent of the problem. Instead, it's arguing a semantic point that "cultural" genocide is harder to pin down than overt WW2-style death camps. It argues that if we call this genocide, then nobody will care about a bigger issue down the road. But given that the United States and other allies have been shockingly derelict in holding China to account over what is widely agreed to be an ethnic cleansing, the decay of the word "genocide" as an accurate descriptor of a coordinated effort to eliminate a culture should not be our top worry right now.
I do not buy the article's concerns. It is wild to me that people can argue we're being too aggressive talking about China right now. We are not being aggressive enough. International courts are not pursuing China strongly enough right now. The CCP is being ignored even though the actual facts of the case are agreed on by almost everyone even in this article -- that China is attempting to eliminate an entire culture, and they are deploying horrifying methods in the pursuit of that goal.
Plurality of countries, including majority Islamic countries, have stated positions that still support Chinese actions in XJ as counter insurgency. CCP has and maintained the dominant narrative.
Semantics is the only context that matters if the goal is to trigger legal consequences. Cultural genocide doesn't legally exist, it's a more apt label but one that does not have any diplomatic consequences. Hence effort to over-exaggerate, which has and will fail for the simple reasons that 1) it's not correct 2) China has more support.
>being too aggressive
Outside of possibly a few FVEY countries making effort to coordinate their own deliberations, the majority of the world will not adopt genocide label because they understand the US led initiative is bullshit and self-serving. There's a reason Pompeo tried to bypass straight into genocide despite crimes against humanity being a more appropriate label as determined by the review findings of his own state department. Crimes against humanity, while more formalized than cultural genocide, still does not have comprehensive convention or consequences. No one is obligated to sanction or punish crimes against humanity. And if it ever did, it would open up US actions to similar scrutiny. It's why the Hague Invasion Act exists.
Sure, then prosecute XJ for what it is, not what it's not. Use XJ as opportunity to formalize conventions and punishments for crimes against humanity and cultural genocide. The genocide strategy is not designed to do that, it's a reach designed to undermine China while explicitly not setting the standards higher for everyone else. More cynically, it's partisan domestic politics (from several countries) because curtailing is not realistic. It's feasible to pursue a credible human rights strategy, but this isn't it. It's exaggerations and propaganda for theatre. If international community wanted accountability they'd start sanctioning Canada for self professed cultural genocide. They can do that right now. Then move to XJ, a system smaller on relative terms, on absolute terms smaller than US prison complex. It affects less than 0.5% of Chinese population. It's not a small issue, but also not a huge one.
> I have a black friend
This is not token "I have a black friend" say so but lopsided "almost everyone in the black community" say so. XJ is counter-insurgency the same way US overreaction to 911 was in the middle east. Except ME countries identify with terrorism from religious extremism, hence their endorsement of Chinese narrative _and_ observes China's effort at systematic solution. That can't be handwaved away into China is genociding for lulz, nor dismissing the plurality opinion as not in good faith. Domestic security trumps human rights, always. Pompeo calling XJ genocide while removing ETIM from terror watch lists at the same time pretty much says it all. There's no credibility to human right lectures from wealthy, safe countries that atrocitied their way to wealth and secure borders. The reason why current human rights frameworks are DOA is because they can't reconcile between sins and security.
What do you believe is being exaggerated? Do you think the 1st-hand accounts we have are lies?
There's a difference between a semantic argument that says "we agree on everything except the word for this" (ie, the State department's disagreement that sparked this thread in the first place) and an argument that says "China isn't doing the things you say it is."
Which argument are you making?
> That can't be handwaved away into China is genociding for lulz, nor dismissing the plurality opinion as not in good faith.
But it's not in good faith. Unless you want to seriously argue right now that the accounts we have of official-condoned systematic rape and abortion are lies, then an endorsement of this system or an attempt to say that it's not a serious human rights violation is in bad faith. You can't have your cake and eat it, you can't say that there's a good faith argument that China is just responding to an insurgency threat unless you're also willing to dig in and actually say what that argument is.
Do you agree that systematic torture, forced abortions, forced labor of ethnic minorities, reeducation camps for those minorities, and a coordinated effort to eliminate their culture are a crime against humanity?
And on the note of 9/11, what is the good faith argument that the response so far (nothing) is comparable to forcibly changing a regime based on fake information? We're not talking about forcibly changing China's government. I do not care whether or not China is a Communist country, I don't care if it becomes a global leader in manufacturing. Good for it if it does. But it can't do it with forced labor from an ethnic minority.
We have had zero real response to China committing cultural genocide, and people are arguing that's too much response? That's not a good faith argument, I'm not going to pretend it is.
> There's no credibility to human right lectures from wealthy, safe countries that atrocitied their way to wealth and secure borders.
What you're arguing here is effectively that no one is ever allowed to call out any other country on human rights issues because we all have sins. And on one level you're right -- the US is a country built on atrocities, and the US is currently engaged in human rights abuses within its own country. The US has sins.
But the answer to that can not be nihilism. I have no sympathy for this argument, go tell an Uighur that they don't get help because we want to grapple with our white guilt first. People who are being oppressed do not care about the logistics or appearance of how they're helped, they want allies. The Uighur population does not exist to be an object lesson to the West, and the solution to noticing hypocrisy is to improve conditions across the board, not to nihilistically throw up our hands and decide to do nothing.
The US should sanction China and the US should address its own history and ongoing failures with racism, colonialism, and oppression. Feeling bad about US history is not an excuse to stick our heads in the sand. There's a difference between recognizing hypocrisy and trying to correct it, and using hypocrisy as an excuse to lower standards for everyone even further.
You argue that if advocates for Uighur rights were honest, they'd be trying to:
> Use XJ as opportunity to formalize conventions and punishments for crimes against humanity and cultural genocide.
> start sanctioning Canada for self professed cultural genocide.
But this is literally what advocates are trying to do right now when they argue that the current legal definition of genocide is interpreted too narrowly. What you're arguing advocates should do is what they are currently doing -- campaigning for the recognition of cultural genocide as a human rights violation with concrete consequences.
If you want the US/Canada held to more account, and if you genuinely believe that these nations are engaged in cultural genocide, then you should be on board with this campaign -- a formal definition of cultural genocide can be used across the board to try and address some of the hypocrisy that you're very sincerely worried about. If you genuinely believe that the US prison system is a bigger issue, then why aren't you trying to expand the definitions so that the US prison system can be addressed? The EU is already leaning towards an interpretation of US imprisonment as cruel and unusual punishment in certain situations. Increased scrutiny in that area would only be helpful.
This is not the slam-dunk argument you think it is; I would love to get rid of forced labor in US prisons, and I (and other activists on the ground campaigning for prisoner rights) would all love to see more international pressure in that direction. It would be appreciated, please get on it.
But most of the international criticism about the term "cultural genocide" is not really coming from a position of wanting to raise standards across the board, it's coming from a position that argues that any attempt to raise standards at all is illegitimate and unfair. If there actually was a coordinated effort by any of these critics to formalize and broaden consequences for more general human rights violations, I would be on board with it. But there's not, which does leave me questioning what their goals actually are.
Severity and scope mainly. Bad stuff happens as byproduct of program on this scale. My position is numbers and atrocities are exaggerated. GIS study reveals there's 1/3 of the camp as those used to extrapolate the 1M+ figures. Changing testimonies from the same usual suspects is text book atrocity propaganda. The claim it's officially-condoned contradicts leaked memos themselves instructing (relatively) humane treatment which corresponds with earliest testimonies which were tame but also did not move needle. Hence need for exaggeration. TLDR is XJ is an none-event in geopolitical terms if it's comparable to US prison or CAN indigenous reserves where bad things happen as side-effect of scale and power dynamics. They're par for the course hence need to exaggerate into something they're not.
> what their goals actually are.
Neuter human rights + atrocity propaganda as a valid geopolitical weapon, because it engineers dangerous frictions. Fallout from wars has more significant negative outcomes than cultural genocide. The double standards of fabricating greater evils inhibits raising rights i.e. XJ formalized as cultural genocide opens up meaningful tools for Indigenous ppls in Canada. Labelling it as something else absolves such duty. I endorse increasing international pressure on crimes against humanity / cultural genocide to scope where it punishes west and east for benefit and detriment of both. I also acknowledge that there's cynical geopolitical reasons why this is not happening. Finally, a proper reflection on cultural genocide would at least formalize the limits to state powers especially on topics like forced integration, there are so many messed up internal divisions / post-colonial borders keeping countries from prospering - forced integration has been a important tool for stability since time immemorial, we can try to constrain it to what's globally acceptable, or leave it as the current free-for-all.
"Some anti-China forces in the West have concocted and disseminated plenty of false information about Xinjiang and fabricated "lies of the century" in various forms," the embassy said. "They have smeared China's image and slandered its policies on Xinjiang."
It added: "Anyone who is fair-minded can see that the true intent of those forces is to suppress and contain China's development... Their moves are driven by a Cold War mentality, hegemonic worldview and zero-sum game mindset. China will never allow such farce and vicious demonization to succeed. Lies may mislead people for a while, but cannot win the trust of the world. Facts and truth will eventually bust all lies."
> This opinion was commissioned - but not paid for - by the Global Legal Action Network, a human rights campaign group that focuses on cross-border legal issues, and the World Uighur Congress and the Uighur Human Rights Project.
A note below talked about the DoJ's concerns about 'proving genocide' etc. - it's besides the point.
If they are putting 1M people in jail due to their ethnicity and doing this crazy psychological programming, it's bad enough, the 'forced sterilization' and 'removal of children' is a very serious thing as well, but that doesn't need to happen for this to be 'very very bad'.
We might need to use a different word to describe this, that fits a little more directly to what is happening.
If China was not powerful, there would be trade sanctions, if not embargoes, which is something to consider.
The issue needs to be addressed, it steps beyond the CCP's usual arguments of 'internal problems are not your business'.
Dude, going to war does not mean watching happily at assets' prices dropping. Going to war means actual people dying. And if you'd happily "go to war" with China, I hope it means you're happy to become (and make your family become) among the first people to die at this war - before politicians sign a treaty and revert back to status quo.
Yes, they are:
> Why do we have to jump to genocide.
Because that is the term for what they do.
The refusal to call it genocide is like putting lipstick on a pig; in the end it's still a pig.
The Millitary Times is not a government publication, and even if it was, there is nothing in this publication that advocates that mass violence against civilians would be part of a war with China.
The United States is not planning an ethnic cleanse or mass killing of Chinese citizens.
It is often the goal of the CCP to conflate criticism of themselves (a totalitarian government) with criticism/bigotry towards Chinese culture/people itself. In reality, those are separate things. Genocide is not a fundamental part of Chinese culture, and opposing genocide is not the same thing as opposing Chinese culture -- on the contrary, to argue that ethnic cleansing is just a cultural difference, or that criticism of ethnic cleansing is a criticism of culture, is itself a wildly insulting insinuation about the people of China.
The theoretical conjecturing of a civilian-run magazine about a purely political conflict is not equivalent to an in-progress government-sponsored effort to demonize and eliminate a cultural minority.
You are correct, it wasn't a legal pig. That is why the trials had to loophole it around killing the Cham and other minorities. Points for being technical.
As I said even by your legal definition the Chinese are not committing genocide against the Uyghurs.
The report FYI, which I'm not clear why we care what the lawyers at Essex Court Chambers reading news article on the BBC and NYT think on the matter. Are they even legal experts in genocide?
> As I said even by your legal definition the Chinese are not committing genocide against the Uyghurs.
Counterpoint: They absolutely are.
Worthy to Escape: Why All Believers Will Not Be Raptured Before the Tribulation - Adrian Zenz - https://www.amazon.com.au/Worthy-Escape-Believers-Raptured-T...
Although it must suck having a Chinese army dragging out info on who their opponents are, I personally are critical of someone who looks at Christian documents to pin down technical data on the Rapture. I don't care if someone doesn't personally approve of homosexuals or believes in the Rapture, but when they publish on it, I use that to judge their other work. And this is were we differ, your 'good' sources are simply not my 'good' sources. The first thing on Wiki or Goggle is not a source to me.
Off topic, indeed. And a logical fallacy to boot.
> I personally are critical of someone who looks at Christian documents to pin down technical data on the Rapture.
Irrelevant, as that isn't what we're talking about.
Your -- now flagged -- original comment referred to the forced sterilizations too. What you think of Adrian Zenz or the UN definition of genocide is absolutely irrelevant. There are no two ways about it: forced abortions and sterilizations _do_ fullfil the UN definition of genocide.
Oh wait, it isn't genocide, it's just some innocent ethnic cleansing, right?
I'm not coming at this from the angle of wanting to see the West fail. On the contrary, I think it would be a far better strategic choice to focus on our current crop of governance failures instead of trying to mold other countries, return to looking at first principles instead of "End of History" magical thinking, and come up with stronger incentives and examples for other countries to try the liberal/democratic model of development than just vague appeals to values that don't even sound so great when we are electing populist leaders.
I think an apt comparison would be members of the military being charged with conduct unbecoming. Just because a member of the military does something bad doesn't mean that those are the values of the military. Just because the west has done some bad things doesn't mean those are western values.
Western values are freedom of speech and religion, not imprisoning political opponents or ethnic and religious minorities. Along with the ability to do most anything you want with relatively low amount of restrictions. There are more things that would be considered western values but I think you probably understand what I mean by western values.
Western governments are comprised of people. These are people who are flawed and do not always do the right thing, but that doesn't mean there aren't ideals worth spreading.
We have Biden and others who say that China is just following different cultural norms. If enslaving people is part of a country's culture and value system then we should try to push the western values onto them.
Why is authoritarianism the defining trait of that civ, but somehow the centuries of Western colonization and subjugation aren't a defining trait of Western values? If the majority of the activity, funding and development of a military is to intervene in order to maintain economic and geopolitical interests, isn't that a better way to define it than vague abstract values like a soldier's code or "becoming conduct"? Does it matter that soldiers have a nice story to tell themselves when the end aggregate result of their participation is much grittier?
More broadly, aren't positive values the result of economic and political strength? Living standards are dropping and inequality is rising in the US, and the result was a semi-authoritarian and largely unqualified cabinet. So are Western values actually part of the Western character or a consequence of successful empire building and good economic conditions?
Well, yeah, if you just arbitrarily define things that the West actively prioritized as “not Western values” because it doesn't fit the mythology you want to create of the West, then you can make any argument you want.
In reality, “Western values” are in deep conflict with themselves because the West is not, and never has been, even loosely ideologically coherent, much less ideologically consistent over time.
Are “freedom of speech” and “freedom of religion” Western values? Sure, but so is imprisoning, persecuting, and even exterminating religious, ideological, ethnic, and racial minorities, especially ones which refuse to assimilate the dominant culture. If you
ignore the evidence that the latter has been, and remains today, a prominent value in the West in favor of mythologizing the former as the exclusive set of defining Western values in this domain, you won't understand either the actual West or the way the rest of the world responds to the West.
Could you substantiate this? How many international journalist teams were allowed into China?
It just scratches the surface.
I don't see any evidence of that. The current administration is pretty friendly towards China.
(China would lose though. Just block the oil and coal supply routes)
They did lose, eventually.
It shouls also be viewed in it's geopolitical context - China is desparate to have secure land routes into Europe and the middle east incase things kick off in the South China sea, and by their calculations that security requires (forcefully) integrating the Uighur people into Chinese culture and nationalism. On the other hand, the west will take what opportunity they can to attack China on human rights grounds, despite the hypocrisy of all the human rights abuses around the world they happily ignore (the treatment of Kurds in Turkey, for example).
TLDR; we can be critical of western imperialism, while still holding China to account.
Of course this won't work. People prefer the freedom to work on what they want, and they contribute more to GDP when given that freedom.
The CCP will give guided tours of their concentration camps to try to prove they are not concentration camps.
Pulling out prisoners, in jail against their will, who say on camera: "I am here for my own good, I am happy".
It's bizarre and frightening.
Just like they believed during Soviet Union that gulags were enlightened humanitarian institutions full of happy people.
Western Academics loved Stalin, even as millions were dying in the Ukraine because:
1) He was a Communist - and the leader of the glorious revolution.
2) The direct news of 'how bad it was' wasn't clear. We didn't have TV to project images and experiences. And maybe there was a snippet or two in the NYT about it, so it was easy to dismiss, fantasize.
3) We didn't really understand these mass control regimes yet. This was a new phenom. This massive, centralized control for the proletariat, the grand experiment wasn't up yet. Communism wasn't truly a dirt word until after the 1950's and 1960's when it was also associated with the Cold War.
One would expect by the 10th repetition of the same BS playbook in the last 100 years, people would know by now...
I think the Chinese government is totalitarian and aggressive, and the standard of due process and human rights is very different of what we consider acceptable in the "west".
I also wouldnt be surprised if things like widespread facial recognition and other types of intrusive vigilance is present (something very bad),I also would not be surprised if the area has received a large Han migration (something more gray, neutral). I also acknowledge that people that they may consider dangerous (number in the tens of thousands? are or have been detained for longer periods) and that the youth population receive education to become integrated to the Han majority.
Having said that,I have seen 0 actual evidence of genocide, beyond very wild speculations. 0 bodies, mass graves, executions,1-million people in jail etc. If I see the evidence I of course will change my mind.
On the other hand almost every notably speaker of the genocide have had an axis to grind against China. From the crazy newborn Christian Zenz, to the Uyghur woman who worked for the CIA and did a reddit AMA, to yes! people like Pompeo or Trump or even the mainstream western media.We are in the middle of a new cold-war.
Uighurs are exempt of the 2-child policy reserved to the Han, and their population have increased in the region compared to the previous decades.China has also be receptive to receive inspection and FWIW the entire muslim block is with China.You could argue that they are being blackmailed, but some of them are rich enough to not depend now or in the future from China.
Anyway, it is going to be interesting once the proposed French laws against Muslims extremism are in place to see if the same standard will be applied to the reporting. Interesting times these.
That's rather convenient. Wonder if any global powers with a vested interest could take advantage of this mindset...
> China controls flow of information so tightly, that even rumours should be considered credible unless proven otherwise.
You could say exactly the same about the military occupation of every country, or are we getting the whole truth in Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen or Iraq?
For me this a case of simply, "Since I am American/European I will believe my press" Well, I am not Chinese, neither American or European so I dont have that automatic loyalty nor prejudice.
For example, you are saing it here, on English-speaking website located in USA. And you are not scared of possible consequences for you and your family.
I am pretty sure there are many better examples, but this one is here and now, and hard to deny.
Like Assange did?
> This marks the fifth consecutive year that repressive governments have imprisoned at least 250 journalists. Lack of global leadership on democratic values – particularly from the United States, where President Donald Trump has inexhaustibly denigrated the press and cozied up to dictators such as Egyptian President Abdelfattah el-Sisi – has perpetuated the crisis. As authoritarians leveraged Trump’s “fake news” rhetoric to justify their actions – particularly in Egypt – the number of journalists jailed on “false news” charges steadily increased. This year, 34 journalists were jailed for “false news,” compared with 31 last year.
> Within the United States, no journalists were jailed at the time of CPJ’s prison census, but an unprecedented 110 journalists were arrested or criminally charged in 2020 and around 300 were assaulted, the majority by law enforcement, according to the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker. At least 12 still face criminal charges, some of which carry jail terms. Observers told CPJ that the polarized political climate, militarized law enforcement, and vitriol toward the media combined during a wave of protests to eradicate norms that once afforded journalists police protection.
But by all means keep believing in a black and white world.
The narrative is created by powerful people usually with input of the state. Can you in all sincerity claim that the treatment of the Palestinians from the Israelis is not in the same league or even worst? And yet you dont hear anyone here talking about a genocide there and any criticism of Israel is swiftly called anti-Semitic.
Manufacturing consent, good old Chomsky was right, as usual.
It is the likes of the CCP & Trump who would paint the world as black and white, i.e. you're either with me or against me. The rest of us acknowledge that press freedoms enable a spectrum of viewpoints.