this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2023
2023 points (97.8% liked)
Technology
59340 readers
5747 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
There's plenty of evidence of China trying to improve the living conditions for Uyghurs in Xinjiang and in the rest of China (poverty alleviation, affirmative action programs for university students, the crackdown against hate speech on social media, ...). So imprisoning some people based on some vague "extremism score" and then seemingly releasing them after some months doesn't show intent to impose living conditions in order to destroy a group. It shows intent on crushing separatism.
Preventing births is true for everybody in China, how does that show an intent to destroy a particular group? It doesn't.
So we're left with "serious bodily or mental harm", which can be explained just as well by an intent to suppress separatism and religious extremism. Literally every war causes some nationality "serious bodily or mental harm" far worse than what China is doing, and we don't call every war a genocide, do we?
Are you really comparing the one-child policy to forced sterilization? I’m trying to have this conversation in good faith but I really can’t believe you seriously think that.
My impression was that the forced sterilization claim was made up, or at least the evidence was not convincing.