Not a strong start. You open by implying that if someone disagrees with you on this they must either be part of the Chinese government or “brainwashed.” That's chauvinism. People here are perfectly capable of thinking for themselves. And if you have proof for your claims you are welcome to post it. Most people who are online regularly have VPNs anyway and even many who aren't regularly too. What tends to happen in these discussions, though, is that the same small circle of sources gets recycled, often tracing back to figures like Adrian Zenz(evangelical on self proclaimed mission from god to destroy china), Rushan Abbas(Guantanamo bay torturer and pretend activist), and outlets like Radio Free Asia.

It is also worth noting that major international bodies have not formally classified the situation as genocide. The United Nations has raised concerns about human rights abuses but has not declared a genocide. The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, representing dozens of Muslim-majority countries, has not described it that way either. That does not mean nothing problematic happened. During the crackdown on ETIM after the numerous attacks there were clearly heavy-handed policies and abuses. But there is still no credible evidence that meets the legal definition of genocide.

If the standard being applied is simply “serious abuses carried out by the state,” then that label would have to be applied much more broadly. By that logic you could argue the United States is committing genocide against African Americans through decades of structural abuse in policing and incarceration. Practices like dragnet policing and mass surveillance have produced enormous harm. Yet most people understand that this still does not meet the legal threshold for genocide, which is exactly why the distinction matters.

You quoted the definition of authoritarianism from Wikipedia. By that definition a very large portion of the world would qualify, including most Western states in one form or another. Centralized power, limits on certain kinds of political activity, and institutions designed to preserve the political order exist almost everywhere. When a label becomes broad enough to describe nearly every state operating in a world structured by power and class conflict, it stops being analytically useful. Terms like “authoritarian” much like “regime”, (as I tried to illustrate already) are often used as political shorthand for governments that oppose Western geopolitical interests (often with racial undertones).

You also seem to assume that people in China cannot criticize politics or joke about leaders. That is simply not accurate. People complain about policies, argue about politics, and make jokes about officials all the time. The idea that political discussion just does not exist here is a caricature that mostly survives outside the country. If you ever spend real time here and actually talk to ordinary people about politics, you will see very quickly that the reality is far more complex than the version usually presented abroad.

[+] fuck_u_spez_in_particular@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Seemingly not, there’s a lot of evidence that what’s happening in Xinjiang are not “lies”… And that is certainly not chauvinism. Or well I don’t want to deny that you are thinking for yourself, but when a lot of relevant variables/info is missing than the conclusion of the thought is well incomplete (and thus incorrect).

If you read my post you'd see I know there were abuses but characterising it as a genocide is a lie built on lies and exaggerations of those abuses.

I mean the necessity for that alone is proof to me that china is authoritarian, I cannot imagine having to use a VPN for basic things, like accessing something like the Wikipedia (great loss for you btw. it’s probably one of the greatest things that the internet has brought so far, not all the capitalistic bullshit that the Silicon Valley creates)

The firewall was originally created to foster and protect China’s fledgling digital infrastructure and data sovereignty. That was a legitimate policy choice. Many countries regulate foreign platforms and data flows. China built its own ecosystem instead of depending on foreign companies. We have seen what happens when foreign platforms operate without local oversight: Facebook facilitating genocide in Myanmar, coordinated anti-vax disinformation campaigns in Southeast Asia, algorithm-driven radicalization. The firewall makes those kinds of external influence operations harder to run at scale.

I like many others here support the firewall even though it can be inconvenient (so long as vpns remain accessible and legal). I have seen the alternatives. The trade off makes sense to us.

Also fuck Wikipedia it constantly sites bullshit like RFA and is used by American intelligence to run psyops. If you use it as a source for anything outside of scientific facts like the atomic number of an element you're an idiot.

Pointing out genocide is distinct from abuse is bad

You do realise if you call all abuses genocide you're not only diluting the term genocide but also slinging mud on the real grievances of people?

While I agree, that most of our democracies are not perfect (European/EU, the US is basically fascism at this point), they basically all allow political plurality, well lets start even by democracy… Rule of law is independent of the executive (separation of powers), nah the more I get into it the less I agree with that

So you agree it applies to pretty much every country? And again can see how that makes it largely meaningless?

Can they do that with state funded TV, like Winnie the pooh (funny story btw. that your great leader is so offended by that caricature…)?

Why do you need TV to agree with you? Are you incapable of having independant political discussion with people in your country without the TV telling you what to think? Also Winnie the pooh isn't banned Winnie the Pooh merch is all over the place it's super popular. Not to mention Disneyland and it's Winnie the pooh themed areas. What was banned was platforms regulating the spread of a racist caricature in the same way they do all other racist caricatures because social media harm is actually regulated here as opposed to allowed run rampant for profits sake.