China's list of 48 extremist tendencies

[Duhon]

No, I bloody did not. I want the Chinese government to stop the persecution and attempted elimination of everything Uyghur, even leave Xinjiang if push comes to shove; that is not and has never been tantamount to allowing another group of revenge-obsessed extremists to take over and start slaughtering Han Chinese and their supporters within Xinjiang.

I am the farthest thing from allowing genocide, whether to protect the Han, take revenge against them, or whatever bloody else. What the fuck?

How on Earth do you propose the Chinese government "leave" Xinjiang if the ethnic Han in Xinjiang don't leave too? You expect the ethnic Hans in Xinjiang to be treated with dignity and respect by an independent Xinjiang ruled by an ethnic Uyghur majority? Did you forget what happened to ethnic Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina when they seceded from SFRY? If you want the Chinese government to 'leave' Xinjiang, then you are supporting the revenge killing and ethnic cleansing of the region against ethnic Han, you can't have it both ways. One will be the inevitable consequence of the other.

Yes. I'm going to have it both ways on this, as nothing precludes a theoretically independent Xinjiang (or even a Xinjiang whose autonomy within the Chinese political system is respected and is not nominal, even if Beijing has final say) that nevertheless keeps ethnic strife at bay, if the right sort of government is established.

[Duhon]

He sees things in black vs white, us vs them, all or nothing zero sum battles.
So you are going to have a hard time reasoning with him.
Because he has reduced his arguments to false dichotomies

Because its how the world works, the Uyghurs have proven themselves tribalistic, showing sustained favourable treatment for their own kind over and above anyone non-Uyghur, especially the Han who are entering the region. Uyghur propaganda promotes an 'us vs. them' idea, seeing fellow Uyghurs as 'natives' and every non-Uyghur and Han individual as an aggressive 'colonist' or 'invader'. I simply recognise human tribalistic thinking for what it is.

And they're right, but that's beside the point. Even colonials can be reconciled to their fate so long as they are treated well, get plenty of say with how to run their local affairs, and are left to practice whatever largely alone --

-- and the current situation in Xinjiang is the farthest thing from that.

[Purgatio]

How on Earth do you propose the Chinese government "leave" Xinjiang if the ethnic Han in Xinjiang don't leave too? You expect the ethnic Hans in Xinjiang to be treated with dignity and respect by an independent Xinjiang ruled by an ethnic Uyghur majority? Did you forget what happened to ethnic Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina when they seceded from SFRY? If you want the Chinese government to 'leave' Xinjiang, then you are supporting the revenge killing and ethnic cleansing of the region against ethnic Han, you can't have it both ways. One will be the inevitable consequence of the other.

Yes. I'm going to have it both ways on this, as nothing precludes a theoretically independent Xinjiang (or even a Xinjiang whose autonomy within the Chinese political system is respected and is not nominal, even if Beijing has final say) that nevertheless keeps ethnic strife at bay, if the right sort of government is established.

Given the decades of sectarian violence in Xinjiang and the wave of racially-motivated attacks on Han for being Han, this seems like wishful thinking at best, not backed up by the weight of history. Kinda like the people who hoped that after Saddem Hussein's regime was toppled, Sunni would stop dominating Shi'ite and the two sects would live in harmony together as equals. That turned out well.

[Sada Difrium]

He sees things in black vs white, us vs them, all or nothing zero sum battles.
So you are going to have a hard time reasoning with him.
Because he has reduced his arguments to false dichotomies

Because its how the world works, the Uyghurs have proven themselves tribalistic, showing sustained favourable treatment for their own kind over and above anyone non-Uyghur, especially the Han who are entering the region. Uyghur propaganda promotes an 'us vs. them' idea, seeing fellow Uyghurs as 'natives' and every non-Uyghur and Han individual as an aggressive 'colonist' or 'invader'. I simply recognise human tribalistic thinking for what it is.

So you're basically confirming his point that you're hard to reason with?

[Purgatio]

Because its how the world works, the Uyghurs have proven themselves tribalistic, showing sustained favourable treatment for their own kind over and above anyone non-Uyghur, especially the Han who are entering the region. Uyghur propaganda promotes an 'us vs. them' idea, seeing fellow Uyghurs as 'natives' and every non-Uyghur and Han individual as an aggressive 'colonist' or 'invader'. I simply recognise human tribalistic thinking for what it is.

And they're right, but that's beside the point. Even colonials can be reconciled to their fate so long as they are treated well and left to practice whatever largely alone --

-- and the current situation in Xinjiang is the farthest thing from that.

They are right that every single ethnic Han in Xinjiang right now is a colonial invader who needs to leave Xinjiang for no other reason than the colour of his skin?

[Purgatio]

Because its how the world works, the Uyghurs have proven themselves tribalistic, showing sustained favourable treatment for their own kind over and above anyone non-Uyghur, especially the Han who are entering the region. Uyghur propaganda promotes an 'us vs. them' idea, seeing fellow Uyghurs as 'natives' and every non-Uyghur and Han individual as an aggressive 'colonist' or 'invader'. I simply recognise human tribalistic thinking for what it is.

So you're basically confirming his point that you're hard to reason with?

No, he claimed that I'm the one who views the world in 'us vs. them' terms, but I don't, I'm arguing that the Uyghurs view the world in 'us vs. them' terms. That's a big difference.

[Purgatio]

The fight against terrorism is not a regular war where the enemy has identified himself through uniforms, a regularised military organisation and what not. Terrorists are hidden, they blend into the regular civilian population. So 'just punish the perpetrators' isn't a viable solution at all.

Punishing those who may or may not support said terrorists is hardly a good idea either, since I imagine that would just push them toward supporting those groups because the government put them in camps and treats practicing their religion (having a beard, wearing a hijab, other things from the list) as extremist behavior.

That bridge has been crossed long ago, the Uyghurs in Xinjiang have demonstrated through their history of violence and ideological extremism that they cannot be reasoned with or appeased. I don't believe the Chinese government will get anywhere trying to appease ethno-supremacists.

[Duhon]

And they're right, but that's beside the point. Even colonials can be reconciled to their fate so long as they are treated well and left to practice whatever largely alone --

-- and the current situation in Xinjiang is the farthest thing from that.

They are right that every single ethnic Han in Xinjiang right now is a colonial invader who needs to leave Xinjiang for no other reason than the colour of his skin?

They are right that the Han are invaders, wrong in conflating Han citizens in Xinjiang with the Chinese government, not necessarily right that the Chinese government must leave (though I wouldn't be opposed to it), and fucking wrong that the only solution is a Final Solution.

Said Final Solution being on the cards on at least two sides: one side doing everything to eliminate not only Islam but the Uyghur identity, the other itching to eradicate Han presence altogether, whether or not each individual played a role in the current nightmare.

[Novus America]

He sees things in black vs white, us vs them, all or nothing zero sum battles.
So you are going to have a hard time reasoning with him.
Because he has reduced his arguments to false dichotomies

Because its how the world works, the Uyghurs have proven themselves tribalistic, showing sustained favourable treatment for their own kind over and above anyone non-Uyghur, especially the Han who are entering the region. Uyghur propaganda promotes an 'us vs. them' idea, seeing fellow Uyghurs as 'natives' and every non-Uyghur and Han individual as an aggressive 'colonist' or 'invader'. I simply recognise human tribalistic thinking for what it is.

Evidence? You keep saying how horrible Uyghur are, but provide no evidence.
There have been some Uyghurs who have committed terrorism, true.

But they are a tiny number.
Some members of a group being bad does not mean the whole group is like the worst.

And then only confirm you Han tribalism.

[Sada Difrium]

So you're basically confirming his point that you're hard to reason with?

No, he claimed that I'm the one who views the world in 'us vs. them' terms, but I don't, I'm arguing that the Uyghurs view the world in 'us vs. them' terms. That's a big difference.

He sees things in black vs white, us vs them, all or nothing zero sum battles.

Because its how the world works

[Novus America]

No, he claimed that I'm the one who views the world in 'us vs. them' terms, but I don't, I'm arguing that the Uyghurs view the world in 'us vs. them' terms. That's a big difference.

Because its how the world works

I am not tribalist! It is all the other tribes fault!

[Purgatio]

They are right that every single ethnic Han in Xinjiang right now is a colonial invader who needs to leave Xinjiang for no other reason than the colour of his skin?

They are right that the Han are invaders, wrong in conflating Han citizens in Xinjiang with the Chinese government, not necessarily right that the Chinese government must leave (though I wouldn't be opposed to it), and fucking wrong that the only solution is a Final Solution.

Said Final Solution being on the cards on at least two sides: one side doing everything to eliminate not only Islam but the Uyghur identity, the other itching to eradicate Han presence altogether, whether or not each individual played a role in the current nightmare.

All this talk of the Chinese government trying to eliminate Uyghur identity and culture seems totally alarmist and blown out of all proportion. Not all the Uyghurs are in these re-education facilities, only those who are likely to commit terrorist attacks against ethnic Han or join groups like the Turkistan Islamic Party. The Chinese government will not destroy Uyghur culture which will survive and persist in the remaining unimprisoned Uyghurs.

[Purgatio]

No, he claimed that I'm the one who views the world in 'us vs. them' terms, but I don't, I'm arguing that the Uyghurs view the world in 'us vs. them' terms. That's a big difference.

Because its how the world works

'Its how the world works' meaning 'this is how communities like the Uyghur see the world and pragmatic policy must reflect it'

[Purgatio]

Because its how the world works, the Uyghurs have proven themselves tribalistic, showing sustained favourable treatment for their own kind over and above anyone non-Uyghur, especially the Han who are entering the region. Uyghur propaganda promotes an 'us vs. them' idea, seeing fellow Uyghurs as 'natives' and every non-Uyghur and Han individual as an aggressive 'colonist' or 'invader'. I simply recognise human tribalistic thinking for what it is.

Evidence? You keep saying how horrible Uyghur are, but provide no evidence.
There have been some Uyghurs who have committed terrorism, true.

But they are a tiny number.
Some members of a group being bad does not mean the whole group is like the worst.

And then only confirm you Han tribalism.

The fact that this is a long-drawn sectarian conflict in Xinjiang that's been going on for literally decades is the proof that this isn't some tiny small-scale attacks here and there. Coupled with the fact that the Turkistan Islamic Party is a powerful enough force in Xinjiang that they've committed terrorist attacks outside China even.

And how on Earth am I confirming Han tribalism? I've suggested nothing of the sort. I'm approaching the matter from a totally race-neutral perspective of counter-terrorism.

[Sada Difrium]

'Its how the world works' meaning 'this is how communities like the Uyghur see the world and pragmatic policy must reflect it'

This is exactly why we're saying you have an us vs. them view of the world. The situation in Xinjiang is complicated, but you are stating things in a way that fits a worldview where the Chinese government have done no wrong and the Uyghurs have done everything wrong.

[Purgatio]

'Its how the world works' meaning 'this is how communities like the Uyghur see the world and pragmatic policy must reflect it'

This is exactly why we're saying you have an us vs. them view of the world. The situation in Xinjiang is complicated, but you are stating things in a way that fits a worldview where the Chinese government have done no wrong and the Uyghurs have done everything wrong.

I'm sure the Chinese government has made mistakes, no one's perfect, but they didn't start this conflict. They didn't start rioting and looting and murdering and butchering people for the colour of their skin or their religion. We must never forget who are the aggressors. For all the Chinese government's faults, they are only acting in defense of the ethnic Han in Xinjiang. If no ethnic Han were being murdered and attacked, none of this would be happening. It's that simple.

[Novus America]

Evidence? You keep saying how horrible Uyghur are, but provide no evidence.
There have been some Uyghurs who have committed terrorism, true.

But they are a tiny number.
Some members of a group being bad does not mean the whole group is like the worst.

And then only confirm you Han tribalism.

The fact that this is a long-drawn sectarian conflict in Xinjiang that's been going on for literally decades is the proof that this isn't some tiny small-scale attacks here and there. Coupled with the fact that the Turkistan Islamic Party is a powerful enough force in Xinjiang that they've committed terrorist attacks outside China even.

And how on Earth am I confirming Han tribalism? I've suggested nothing of the sort. I'm approaching the matter from a totally race-neutral perspective of counter-terrorism.

This is Bullshit:
We all saw you going on about how Han deserve to sleep peacefully in their beds but also support throwing innocent Uyghur in concentration camps because they might (and more likely might not commit a crime.

See you cannot just make outrageous claims and expect everyone to believe them.
Saying you are not tribalist does not make it so.

And again the fact terrorism happens does not mean everyone is bad.
But there is no point “debating” when you make outrageous claims without any data to back them.

[Purgatio]

The fact that this is a long-drawn sectarian conflict in Xinjiang that's been going on for literally decades is the proof that this isn't some tiny small-scale attacks here and there. Coupled with the fact that the Turkistan Islamic Party is a powerful enough force in Xinjiang that they've committed terrorist attacks outside China even.

And how on Earth am I confirming Han tribalism? I've suggested nothing of the sort. I'm approaching the matter from a totally race-neutral perspective of counter-terrorism.

This is Bullshit:
We all saw you going on about how Han deserve to sleep peacefully in their beds but also support throwing innocent Uyghur in concentration camps because they might (and more likely might not commit a crime.

See you cannot just make outrageous claims and expect everyone to believe them.
Saying you are not tribalist does not make it so.

And again the fact terrorism happens does not mean everyone is bad.
But there is no point “debating” when you make outrageous claims without any data to back them.

Only because the persistence of the conflict in Xinjiang over such a long period of time is more than enough evidence that this problem isn't going away any time soon and is the product of more deep-rooted and ingrained sectarian divides in the region.

[Novus America]

This is Bullshit:
We all saw you going on about how Han deserve to sleep peacefully in their beds but also support throwing innocent Uyghur in concentration camps because they might (and more likely might not commit a crime.

See you cannot just make outrageous claims and expect everyone to believe them.
Saying you are not tribalist does not make it so.

And again the fact terrorism happens does not mean everyone is bad.
But there is no point “debating” when you make outrageous claims without any data to back them.

Only because the persistence of the conflict in Xinjiang over such a long period of time is more than enough evidence that this problem isn't going away any time soon and is the product of more deep-rooted and ingrained sectarian divides in the region.

Non Sequitor.
The existence of a conflict does not automatically justify everything.

Do you support international law? Well then support it.
International law demands proportionality and distinction in war.

You cannot go around making claims about international law while advocating trampling it into the ground. I mean the Beijing government does but still.

[Aaraksburg]

This is Bullshit:
We all saw you going on about how Han deserve to sleep peacefully in their beds but also support throwing innocent Uyghur in concentration camps because they might (and more likely might not commit a crime.

See you cannot just make outrageous claims and expect everyone to believe them.
Saying you are not tribalist does not make it so.

And again the fact terrorism happens does not mean everyone is bad.
But there is no point “debating” when you make outrageous claims without any data to back them.

Only because the persistence of the conflict in Xinjiang over such a long period of time is more than enough evidence that this problem isn't going away any time soon and is the product of more deep-rooted and ingrained sectarian divides in the region.

You do realise that depending on which evidence you choose to look at, the Uyghurs have a longer history in Xinjiang than the Han Chinese, and vice versa? Yet the only group being displaced are the former, isn’t it natural that the Uyghurs would fight back to this overt oppression by a government clearly uninterested in their welfare?

[Purgatio]

Only because the persistence of the conflict in Xinjiang over such a long period of time is more than enough evidence that this problem isn't going away any time soon and is the product of more deep-rooted and ingrained sectarian divides in the region.

Non Sequitor.
The existence of a conflict does not automatically justify everything.

Do you support international law? Well then support it.
International law demands proportionality and distinction in war.

You cannot go around making claims about international law while advocating trampling it into the ground. I mean the Beijing government does but still.

Preventative detention is not an 'internal armed conflict' within the strict definition of IHL such that it engages rules like proportionality of military attacks (ie proportionality between military objectives pursued and collateral civilian casualties). And its definitely not an 'international armed conflict' within the definition of Prosecutor v. Tadic.

[Purgatio]

Only because the persistence of the conflict in Xinjiang over such a long period of time is more than enough evidence that this problem isn't going away any time soon and is the product of more deep-rooted and ingrained sectarian divides in the region.

You do realise that depending on which evidence you choose to look at, the Uyghurs have a longer history in Xinjiang than the Han Chinese, and vice versa? Yet the only group being displaced are the former, isn’t it natural that the Uyghurs would fight back to this overt oppression by a government clearly uninterested in their welfare?

People who are not your race moving into your region =/= 'displacement'. Unless, like the Uyghur extremists, you believe in an ethno-state where an entire piece of land is reserved only for members of a particular ethnic group. Which is what the Turkistan Islamic Party (and, from the sound of it, you as well) support. Excluding people with a different racial background and skin colour from ever entering their land. What a backward and regressive worldview for them to hold.

[Novus America]

Non Sequitor.
The existence of a conflict does not automatically justify everything.

Do you support international law? Well then support it.
International law demands proportionality and distinction in war.

You cannot go around making claims about international law while advocating trampling it into the ground. I mean the Beijing government does but still.

Preventative detention is not an 'internal armed conflict' within the strict definition of IHL such that it engages rules like proportionality of military attacks (ie proportionality between military objectives pursued and collateral civilian casualties). And its definitely not an 'international armed conflict' within the definition of Prosecutor v. Tadic.

Even so there are similar human rights rules applying to internal armed conflict.
Just because it is an internal armed conflict does not give you absolute freedom to do anything.

[Purgatio]

Preventative detention is not an 'internal armed conflict' within the strict definition of IHL such that it engages rules like proportionality of military attacks (ie proportionality between military objectives pursued and collateral civilian casualties). And its definitely not an 'international armed conflict' within the definition of Prosecutor v. Tadic.

Even so there are similar human rights rules applying to internal armed conflict.
Just because it is an internal armed conflict does not give you absolute freedom to do anything.

No, my point is that IHL rules of proportionality apply to any military attacks or actions conducted as part of an international or internal 'armed conflict'. But detention facilities are part of civilian law enforcement, not an 'armed conflict', they are a means of preventing future violence and not part and parcel of a wartime military strategy during an armed conflict. Hence, strictly speaking, legally, IHL rules of proportionality don't apply to govern what's happening in Xinjiang. They would govern, say, the Chinese military shelling an Uyghur village or bombing an Uyghur neighbourhood.

[Aaraksburg]

You do realise that depending on which evidence you choose to look at, the Uyghurs have a longer history in Xinjiang than the Han Chinese, and vice versa? Yet the only group being displaced are the former, isn’t it natural that the Uyghurs would fight back to this overt oppression by a government clearly uninterested in their welfare?

People who are not your race moving into your region =/= 'displacement'. Unless, like the Uyghur extremists, you believe in an ethno-state where an entire piece of land is reserved only for members of a particular ethnic group. Which is what the Turkistan Islamic Party (and, from the sound of it, you as well) support. Excluding people with a different racial background and skin colour from ever entering their land. What a backward and regressive worldview for them to hold.

Clearly this one has not heard of the so-called re-education camps in Xinjiang, and or does not care when one is not allowed to practice their own religion. Not to mention the fact that China already heavily restricts the lives of those of Han ethnicity, one can only gather that the Uyghurs, which would have not presented much of a threat if an autonomous government was set up like the one in Hong Kong, would have it worse.