GenZedong @lemmygrad.ml millennialchaos @lemmygrad.ml 5d ago

Responding to a response to my take on Xinjiang

open.substack.com Responding to a response about my statement on Xinjiang

The mysterious 'M' has challenged my take on Xinjiang, is there any substance to it? Or does it simply cite the CIA over and over?

In video form: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iaRSNbv30SE

You're viewing a single thread.

25 comments

I also noticed that in many of your comments, you respond to people bringing up valid criticism and points by saying “Prove it, no CIA” but using American-based and funded sources yourself.

So here’s another issue. The reason I use western sources when possible is because those are the only sources that western liberals tend to accept.

They pull this catch-22 allthefuckingtime.

I understand your point that 30 diplomats from Muslim nations have visited Xinjiang and stated that China is doing an excellent job, however, it is just as important to note that many of these nations rely on China's economic support through the Belt and Road initiative, so they wouldn’t risk talking bad about China.

So the Muslim majority countries are lying because they’re all corrupt, but the white western countries (who routinely bomb Muslims) are telling the truth and aren’t corrupt?

Nonfalsifiable orthodoxy hours. Yet more imperial core chauvinist catch-22 shitfuckery.

Lengthy article; I’ll have to pick it up where I left off tomorrow. Amazing stuff—thanks!
- I feel this in my bones. Previously I used to concede that the Muslim world and its leaders were corrupt, as it's quite obvious many do not have the best interest of their people (you will never get me to praise the UAE or Saudi). However I've stopped conceding this point because of a couple reasons.
  
  I was able to reflect on the fact that this tendency of mine was based on an internalized embarrassment for being Muslim in the west which I'd yet not reckoned with. I've since then largely addressed this unwarranted shame and would like to help the rest if my community confront it where I see it is prominent.
  
  Why should I concede that every single Muslim country is in any way less trustworthy then the West without forcing the one essentially claiming that to prove it thoroughly. It's not my job to do a comparative analysis on a claim that they make without evidence.
  
  The US has shown it is far and away more diplomatically hostile to countries who don't toe their line then China is. They've actively overthrown governments across the world for the last century over the premise that it was in the "American" interest. These countries have every reason to be more inline with the US out of fear of retaliation then they do with China. Countries like Türkeya are known for funding acual separatist groups who operated in Xinjiang, along with originally spreading the Uyghur myth. However China does not have icy relations with them, how exactly does that say China will punish your country for saying something regarding their domestic affairs.
  
  So I've stopped conceding the Muslim country corruption talking point because it's utterly nonsense in the conversation relative to reality. Westerners have no business butting into and commenting on the affairs of Muslim countries. They can shove off and let our community discuss it ourselves, but until they do that, those conversation get delayed.
  
  Might not be my business, since I'm not Muslim or Arab (I am a POC though), but I don't think you should concede that point. Alot of Arabic countries' leaders are no doubt shitty/evil. But that doesn't preclude the U.S. from being untrustworthy and duplicitous and conniving.
  
  As you said, Arab nations and the Global South have far more to fear from the U.S. than they do China.
  
  Even on the extreme end, China would at most send a strongly worded letter and a handful of slight sanctions to any country that slanders them, but China as a whole forgives slights surprisingly easily and is way more willing to not rock the boat, and to keep trading, for practical, economic, peaceful and diplomatic reasons.
  
  A single low-level governmental official of a global south country could rightfully talk shit about the U.S., and the U.S. could spend an entire country's worth of GDP like it was goddamn pocket change, to pay violent psychopath gang members and mercenaries, religious fundamentalists, or wealthy traitorous gusanos (or any combination of the above) to overthrow that country's government, psychologically, mentally, physically and sexually assault it's people, siphon it's natural resources, and lie about it, all before fucking breakfast.
  
  I don't concede the point. I used to but for the reasons stated above I've stopped, and tried to get other people in my community to follow that decision as well.
- The reason I use western sources when possible is because those are the only sources that western liberals tend to accept.
  
  Another point here is that a statement against one's interest is more reliable than a statement in one's interest. People lie to benefit themselves all the time; they are more careful about lying in ways that embarrass or implicate them.

25 comments