The Genocide of the Uighurs

[Diahon]

Many peoples, whether as an act of deliberate dismantling of rebellious institutions, gripped by delusions of persecution (in itself a form of narcissism in reverse), or in search of opportunities in land unfortunatelt populated by savages, have attempted to wipe out their undesirable minorities in the course of history. From the destruction of the kingdom of Israel through Charlemagne's campaigns across western and central Europe through the pacification of the Wild West and beyond, humanity is replete with such barbarities, the more creative the more the same.

Even I, however, must give pause to the depths with which the Communist Party of China, lately overlords of the supposedly autonomous frontier province of Xinjiang, have gone to wipe out the threat of... Islam? Uighurs? who knows anymore?

The Chinese government is taking draconian measures to slash birth rates among Uighurs and other minorities as part of a sweeping campaign to curb its Muslim population, even as it encourages some of the country’s Han majority to have more children.

While individual women have spoken out before about forced birth control, the practice is far more widespread and systematic than previously known, according to an AP investigation based on government statistics, state documents and interviews with 30 ex-detainees, family members and a former detention camp instructor. The campaign over the past four years in the far west region of Xinjiang is leading to what some experts are calling a form of “demographic genocide.”

The state regularly subjects minority women to pregnancy checks, and forces intrauterine devices, sterilization and even abortion on hundreds of thousands, the interviews and data show. Even while the use of IUDs and sterilization has fallen nationwide, it is rising sharply in Xinjiang.

The population control measures are backed by mass detention both as a threat and as a punishment for failure to comply. Having too many children is a major reason people are sent to detention camps, the AP found, with the parents of three or more ripped away from their families unless they can pay huge fines. Police raid homes, terrifying parents as they search for hidden children.

I would encourage whoever is still reading this far down and is prepared to click the link to peruse the Associated Press article on this matter.

With this latest revelation I must say this (at least in a safe-for-NSG way): what particularly struck me as I read through the article is the different treatment of Han and Uighur. While I was always aware that being Han in Xinjiang or indeed any sufficiently recalcitrant Chinese territory gave you some privileges, I believed in my naivete that as long as you didn't rebel and conformed to the strictures of Chinese behavior, you're fine, you will be treated just any Han. Call it but one measure of my optimism in the species, even after years of contradictions thrown at me.

Clearly I was wrong.

Again.

Discuss.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

It appears the law for Uighurs is still 3 children max, just like Han who live in the countryside.

The article gives evidence that the rule is not being enforced fairly, but mainly cites cases where Uighurs have broken the law.

If the rule was just enforced fairly I wouldn't have a problem with it. 3 children isn't in any way genocide.

[Baltenstein]

Does this happen in a Western country and/or is the perpetrator a Western country?

If not, well...



On a more serious note, the practice of encouraging the ethnic majority to immigrate into the troublesome province en masse and/or have lots of children to eventually outbreed the natives seems eerily remniscient of the Soviet policies on the Baltic countries - altough the Soviets, to my knowledge, did not go that low as to enforce sterilization programs on Estonians and Latvians.

[Purpelia]

It appears the law for Uighurs is still 3 children max, just like Han who live in the countryside.

The article gives evidence that the rule is not being enforced fairly, but mainly cites cases where Uighurs have broken the law.

If the rule was just enforced fairly I wouldn't have a problem with it. 3 children isn't in any way genocide.

You don't get how this works. It's CHINA therefore it's evil.
Seriously, that is the neo-cold war world we live in.

[Britannia Maior]

Beyond being like “yeah that’s kinda inhumane bro” I must admit that I don’t really care much for what’s going on in Xinjiang. China doing Chinese things, I guess. So CCP bad.
I’m not going to be wasting my breath.

[Dumb Ideologies]

So long as re-education and attempts to change behaviour are the order of the day rather than mass-murder then I'm not too bothered by what they're doing.

Indeed it may be the best in a array of difficult choices. Concerted action to replace their culture in a generation is to me preferable in the long term to the strategy of pretending differences aren't divisive, as seem in the increasingly obvious negative consequences of baizuo western multiculturalism where the minorities are trying to chuck out the culture of the majority and the elites are so deep in self hate that in many places they've just capitulated entirely and are trying to indoctrinate the majority into hating themselves too.

Don't @me I'm hiding out with the mole-men living under the Great Wall and we don't have phone signal.

[Senkaku]

RIP to some real ones I guess

Maybe if we give the Chinese even more money they’ll magically turn into a democracy tho

[Unstoppable Empire of Doom]

Many peoples, whether as an act of deliberate dismantling of rebellious institutions, gripped by delusions of persecution (in itself a form of narcissism in reverse), or in search of opportunities in land unfortunatelt populated by savages, have attempted to wipe out their undesirable minorities in the course of history. From the destruction of the kingdom of Israel through Charlemagne's campaigns across western and central Europe through the pacification of the Wild West and beyond, humanity is replete with such barbarities, the more creative the more the same.

Even I, however, must give pause to the depths with which the Communist Party of China, lately overlords of the supposedly autonomous frontier province of Xinjiang, have gone to wipe out the threat of... Islam? Uighurs? who knows anymore?

The Chinese government is taking draconian measures to slash birth rates among Uighurs and other minorities as part of a sweeping campaign to curb its Muslim population, even as it encourages some of the country’s Han majority to have more children.

While individual women have spoken out before about forced birth control, the practice is far more widespread and systematic than previously known, according to an AP investigation based on government statistics, state documents and interviews with 30 ex-detainees, family members and a former detention camp instructor. The campaign over the past four years in the far west region of Xinjiang is leading to what some experts are calling a form of “demographic genocide.”

The state regularly subjects minority women to pregnancy checks, and forces intrauterine devices, sterilization and even abortion on hundreds of thousands, the interviews and data show. Even while the use of IUDs and sterilization has fallen nationwide, it is rising sharply in Xinjiang.

The population control measures are backed by mass detention both as a threat and as a punishment for failure to comply. Having too many children is a major reason people are sent to detention camps, the AP found, with the parents of three or more ripped away from their families unless they can pay huge fines. Police raid homes, terrifying parents as they search for hidden children.

I would encourage whoever is still reading this far down and is prepared to click the link to peruse the Associated Press article on this matter.

With this latest revelation I must say this (at least in a safe-for-NSG way): what particularly struck me as I read through the article is the different treatment of Han and Uighur. While I was always aware that being Han in Xinjiang or indeed any sufficiently recalcitrant Chinese territory gave you some privileges, I believed in my naivete that as long as you didn't rebel and conformed to the strictures of Chinese behavior, you're fine, you will be treated just any Han. Call it but one measure of my optimism in the species, even after years of contradictions thrown at me.

Clearly I was wrong.

Again.

Discuss.

When I found out about this nearly a decade ago I was shocked. Now I am more informed. If you think the US is racist China is in another league.

[Krasny-Volny]

It appears the law for Uighurs is still 3 children max, just like Han who live in the countryside.

The article gives evidence that the rule is not being enforced fairly, but mainly cites cases where Uighurs have broken the law.

If the rule was just enforced fairly I wouldn't have a problem with it. 3 children isn't in any way genocide.

You don't get how this works. It's CHINA therefore it's evil.
Seriously, that is the neo-cold war world we live in.

The Cold War never ended in the minds of the Communists in Beijing. Regardless of their ideological commitment to Marxism (or lack thereof), their strategic objectives have ensured that the Red Chinese have, and always will be, enemies of the US and the Free World. Their continued espionage activities in the US, saber-rattling against the pro-Western governments in the ASEAN region, and partisan opposition to any and all Western foreign policy initiatives reflect this.

[Thepeopl]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinjian ... tion_camps

TL;DR: Claims of forced abortions, forced medication and loss of menstruation.

Looks like making female infertile to me. If you keep it up long enough, that will lead to genocide.

[The New California Republic]

Here is another article on the same thing:

China is forcing women to be sterilised or fitted with contraceptive devices in Xinjiang in an apparent attempt to limit the population of Muslim Uighurs, according to a new research report.

The state is already facing widespread criticism for holding Uighurs in detention camps.

It is believed there are about one million Uighur people and other mostly Muslim minorities detained in China, in what the state defines as "re-education" camps.

Mr Zenz's report was based on a combination of official regional data, policy documents and interviews with ethnic minority women in Xinjiang.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-53220713

[Novus America]

RIP to some real ones I guess

Maybe if we give the Chinese even more money they’ll magically turn into a democracy tho

But slavery and genocide is okay as long as it is done overseas. Rainbow capitalism!
I do not see how we can non hypocritically argue slavery is bad when we fund slavery overseas, or ethnic concentration camps are bad when we profit from them.

We are all slavers now.

The question is what are we going to do about it? Continue to sell out our national security and values to a hostile regime that is undermining and destroying the values we (falsely) claim to espouse?
Or actually put our national security and values over importing “cheap” shit?

Really we should either 1) legalize slavery, eliminate the minimum wages and all environmental protections because we clearly give zero fucks about those things as we exploit them with almost everything we buy or 2) actually hold trade partners accountable for when they fail to abide by minimum standard on those things.

I think the latter is preferable of course but the at least the first more honest and is less hypocritical.
I do not support this BS that something is wrong here, but we should subsidize and benefit from it being done elsewhere.

[Nuroblav]

Classic authoritarianism here. Question is, what do we do about it?

No really this is my brain right now

[Pilipinas and Malaya]

So long as re-education and attempts to change behaviour are the order of the day rather than mass-murder then I'm not too bothered by what they're doing.

Indeed it may be the best in a array of difficult choices. Concerted action to replace their culture in a generation is to me preferable in the long term to the strategy of pretending differences aren't divisive, as seem in the increasingly obvious negative consequences of baizuo western multiculturalism where the minorities are trying to chuck out the culture of the majority and the elites are so deep in self hate that in many places they've just capitulated entirely and are trying to indoctrinate the majority into hating themselves too.

Don't @me I'm hiding out with the mole-men living under the Great Wall and we don't have phone signal.

I'd like to see some concrete proof of what they do in the camps tbh. Knowing that this is China, master of hiding all sorts of things, it's really unlikely that what happens in there will see the light of day.

Unless there is concrete evidence of that the stuff happening in the camps is pretty much teaching them to hate and disown their religion and culture (which if there is, I would like to be directed to some sources), I'm not exactly too sure what to think of what happens to all the people that were unjustly sent there.

I apologise for my wording. It's 2 am where I am.

[Purpelia]

You don't get how this works. It's CHINA therefore it's evil.
Seriously, that is the neo-cold war world we live in.

The Cold War never ended in the minds of the Communists in Beijing. Regardless of their ideological commitment to Marxism (or lack thereof), their strategic objectives have ensured that the Red Chinese have, and always will be, enemies of the US and the Free World. Their continued espionage activities in the US, saber-rattling against the pro-Western governments in the ASEAN region, and partisan opposition to any and all Western foreign policy initiatives reflect this.

You have that all the other way around. it is the so called "free world" and in particular the united states that has not abandoned the cold war mindset and seeks to impose it self as a world empire akin to what the British had in the 19th century. And they see an emergent China trying to become a regional superpower as a threat to that.

But slavery and genocide is okay as long as it is done overseas. Rainbow capitalism!
I do not see how we can non hypocritically argue slavery is bad when we fund slavery overseas, or ethnic concentration camps are bad when we profit from them.

We are all slavers now.

The question is what are we going to do about it? Continue to sell out our national security and values to a hostile regime that is undermining and destroying the values we (falsely) claim to espouse?
Or actually put our national security and values over importing “cheap” shit?

Really we should either 1) legalize slavery, eliminate the minimum wages and all environmental protections because we clearly give zero fucks about those things as we exploit them with almost everything we buy or 2) actually hold trade partners accountable for when they fail to abide by minimum standard on those things.

I think the latter is preferable of course but the at least the first more honest and is less hypocritical.
I do not support this BS that something is wrong here, but we should subsidize and benefit from it being done elsewhere.

Values are the way poor people justify why they are poor. There is no place for them in politics. People like you are the reason why we have neocolonialism and why the cold war was as violent as it was. It's the idea that any country that does not obey your morality must be evil and beaten lest they be a threat to your way of life that drove the crusades, WW2 and a lot of other wars in our history. And it is one we must abandon.

[Novus America]

The Cold War never ended in the minds of the Communists in Beijing. Regardless of their ideological commitment to Marxism (or lack thereof), their strategic objectives have ensured that the Red Chinese have, and always will be, enemies of the US and the Free World. Their continued espionage activities in the US, saber-rattling against the pro-Western governments in the ASEAN region, and partisan opposition to any and all Western foreign policy initiatives reflect this.

You have that all the other way around. it is the so called "free world" and in particular the united states that has not abandoned the cold war mindset and seeks to impose it self as a world empire akin to what the British had in the 19th century. And they see an emergent China trying to become a regional superpower as a threat to that.

But slavery and genocide is okay as long as it is done overseas. Rainbow capitalism!
I do not see how we can non hypocritically argue slavery is bad when we fund slavery overseas, or ethnic concentration camps are bad when we profit from them.

We are all slavers now.

The question is what are we going to do about it? Continue to sell out our national security and values to a hostile regime that is undermining and destroying the values we (falsely) claim to espouse?
Or actually put our national security and values over importing “cheap” shit?

Really we should either 1) legalize slavery, eliminate the minimum wages and all environmental protections because we clearly give zero fucks about those things as we exploit them with almost everything we buy or 2) actually hold trade partners accountable for when they fail to abide by minimum standard on those things.

I think the latter is preferable of course but the at least the first more honest and is less hypocritical.
I do not support this BS that something is wrong here, but we should subsidize and benefit from it being done elsewhere.

Values are the way poor people justify why they are poor. There is no place for them in politics. People like you are the reason why we have neocolonialism and why the cold war was as violent as it was. It's the idea that any country that does not obey your morality must be evil and beaten lest they be a threat to your way of life that drove the crusades, WW2 and a lot of other wars in our history. And it is one we must abandon.

If someone is poor because they are a slave, it is not their fault for being a slave.
The poor are not always at fault for their plight you know. Always blame the victim is a bad policy. Sometimes poor people do make their own lives worse, but sometimes a government makes it hard to impossible to improve their lot too.

And you have it quite the opposite “neocolonialism” is based on the “free trade” moral relativism and realpolitik you espouse.
Why would you be against buying control of another countries resources to benefit big businesses?

Absent pure isolationism, mutually exclusive value systems will conflict.
But note I am hardly calling for a crusade here, simply that we stop exploiting and subsidizing such abuses to drive up wealth inequality and in the name of “cheap” imports.

Trade restrictions on countries engaging in behavior we would not tolerate in our own economic systems is quite different than saying we must launch a military crusade.

It is simply saying if they want to trade with us, they have to play by our rules to some degree.

Which is only fair. If a company in the US is not allowed to benefit from forced labor of ethnic minorities (because we banned that in 1865) why should that same company be able to use slaves again via outsourcing? If something is illegal here, it should be illegal or at least very restricted to use it to outsource.

What we find important to prioritize in our domestic economic regulations and civil rights, we should also apply to trade, to prevent encouraging the behaviors we claim are unacceptable.

And it is our sovereign right to restrict trade with us for any reason whatsoever.
If they argue sovereignty means they can treat their own people in this manner, fine, but we do not have to economically support it. Our sovereignty means we can refuse to buy what they are selling and restrict their government from propagandizing it here.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

On the one hand, I've always thought it a false equivalence to conflate forced sterilization with "genocide."

On the other hand, people who fly off the handle at California for forcibly sterilizing people convicted of actual crimes seem not to give a damn about China doing it to people just for being Muslim. (There is also the context to consider; this wouldn't be the first time China resorted to drastic measures against things that most of the world would regard as being within one's rights.)

Sort of like how we hate it when US soldiers gun down a few students in cold blood but don't do anything about China gunning down thousands of students in cold blood. Or how we hate it when US companies improperly store chemicals that explode killing a few people but don't do anything about China improperly storing chemicals that explode killing a few hundred. Why haven't we issued an embargo on all goods from this creepy fascist dictatorship already? We did it to Cuba for less than this.

[Ostroeuropa]

So long as re-education and attempts to change behaviour are the order of the day rather than mass-murder then I'm not too bothered by what they're doing.

Indeed it may be the best in a array of difficult choices. Concerted action to replace their culture in a generation is to me preferable in the long term to the strategy of pretending differences aren't divisive, as seem in the increasingly obvious negative consequences of baizuo western multiculturalism where the minorities are trying to chuck out the culture of the majority and the elites are so deep in self hate that in many places they've just capitulated entirely and are trying to indoctrinate the majority into hating themselves too.

Don't @me I'm hiding out with the mole-men living under the Great Wall and we don't have phone signal.

Broadly this, however, there's a difference between geographically irreconcilable issues and ones which are. The Uighyurs have been there for, well, almost a thousand years. They've been independent in the past, and practically independent since, and are the majority in the region in question. It's the relatively recent centralization of state power in china that has forced the issue where their culture has posed problems for the nation and its cohesion. I think granting them independence is the right option that accounts for the disaster of multiculturalism as well as balances it with humane treatment. In cases where there's no discrete territory firmly associated with the group and they are dispersed as a minority through majority areas, that option is lacking, but here, it is an option, and so the conclusion we have to draw is that this is an act of inhumanity, not a justifiable act of assimilationism.

We also have to conclude that China is being obsessively chauvinistic in their policing of the Uigyurs, not interested in any kind of cultural exchange or appropriating elements of their culture that would be beneficial.
I conclude this because one of the things that gets you put into the camp for being a religious extremist is "Quitting smoking". The amount of smokers in China is off the charts and it's fairly obviously a negative for their society on the whole, at least a negative in so far as actively punishing people for quitting is insane. (Especially as it does not hold any particular significance in Chinese culture, it's not a centerpiece of ceremonial or cultural importance. It's a thing people do, sure, but it's not like... tea to the British or whatever. It's not a National Meme).

That suggests to me that what is at stake isn't so much a desire to preserve cohesion as a function for delivering good things, but a conflation of the ends and means.

[Purpelia]

If someone is poor because they are a slave, it is not their fault for being a slave.

And if someone chooses to live in a country and society run in a way that makes them a slave in your eyes that is their choice. In their eyes you live in just as much of a hellhole. Hell, what would our own ancestors say of our modern society where all morality has been turned upside down? Different people and cultures want different things. And the only way to allow one to have his way is to allow all to have their way. Which is why we have a thing called the human right to self determination.

The poor are not always at fault for their plight you know. Always blame the victim is a bad policy. Sometimes poor people do make their own lives worse, but sometimes a government makes it hard to impossible to improve their lot too.

There is no government which stands without consent from its people. For the people can and will bring down any government they disprove of grievously enough

And you have it quite the opposite “neocolonialism” is based on the “free trade” moral relativism and realpolitik you espouse.
Why would you be against buying control of another countries resources to benefit big businesses?

What? me? Free trade? I am insulted. I believe in protectionism, empowering ones own nation but one that crucially DOES NOT MEDDLE IN THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF OTHERS.

Absent pure isolationism, mutually exclusive value systems will conflict.

Not really. Conflicting interests will conflict. Because that's competition for the same limited resources. But conflicting values can and do coexist just fine as long as their interests are not conflicting. That's how marriages work. And social tolerance. And families. And every workplace ever. You work and live just fine with people you don't conflict with over real material interests unless you are a fanatical ideologue.

But note I am hardly calling for a crusade here, simply that we stop exploiting and subsidizing such abuses to drive up wealth inequality and in the name of “cheap” imports.

And why not? There are plenty of reasons why promoting domestic industry as opposed to cheap imports is a good thing. But morality is, and I must spit here, not one of them. Morality is newer a good reason to make geopolitical decisions. That's how crusades happen.

Trade restrictions on countries engaging in behavior we would not tolerate in our own economic systems is quite different than saying we must launch a military crusade.

No, they are not. Either way you ruin nations and wreck the lives of innocent citizens therein for no reason other than to feel the selfrighteous glee of having punished someone you are morally opposed to. That is no different than cult members who shun those among them that act out of line. Only you ruin the lives of millions, not single individuals.

It is simply saying if they want to trade with us, they have to play by our rules to some degree.

And what right do you have to set the rules of what is and is not acceptable for a nation to do within its own borders? Who made you the arbiter of good vs evil government? Who made you the judge of a good vs bad society?

Which is only fair. If a company in the US is not allowed to benefit from forced labor of ethnic minorities (because we banned that in 1865) why should that same company be able to use slaves again via outsourcing? If something is illegal here, it should be illegal or at least very restricted to use it to outsource.

Why? I mean, by the same logic countries with stricter labor laws than america, and let's face it that means the entire civilized world, should isolate you in the same manner. Corporations should obey the laws of the nation they operate in. And if you want to keep them from operating in other countries just use protectionist measures like tariffs to actually bring those jobs home instead of moralizing.

What we find important to prioritize in our domestic economic regulations and civil rights, we should also apply to trade, to prevent encouraging the behaviors we claim are unacceptable.

Because that's not how rights work. What you do in your own nation is your choice. It is your right as a nation to be as liberal and progressive or as despotic and regressive as you wish to be. But in order for you to have that right and enjoy it undisturbed you have to ensure everyone gets the same right of choice. Because you are NOT special. Your choice is NOT special. And if you take that right away from others for the crime of using it in ways you disprove off than you will loose it as well.

And it is our sovereign right to restrict trade with us for any reason whatsoever.
If they argue sovereignty means they can treat their own people in this manner, fine, but we do not have to economically support it. Our sovereignty means we can refuse to buy what they are selling and restrict their government from propagandizing it here.

Your rights stop when the rights of another begin. That is why you can't use your right of free speech to intimidate others into doing your bidding.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

"Never Forget" they said in 1945.

Well, they forgot.

[Novus America]

If someone is poor because they are a slave, it is not their fault for being a slave.

And if someone chooses to live in a country and society run in a way that makes them a slave in your eyes that is their choice. In their eyes you live in just as much of a hellhole. Hell, what would our own ancestors say of our modern society where all morality has been turned upside down? Different people and cultures want different things. And the only way to allow one to have his way is to allow all to have their way. Which is why we have a thing called the human right to self determination.

The poor are not always at fault for their plight you know. Always blame the victim is a bad policy. Sometimes poor people do make their own lives worse, but sometimes a government makes it hard to impossible to improve their lot too.

There is no government which stands without consent from its people. For the people can and will bring down any government they disprove of grievously enough

And you have it quite the opposite “neocolonialism” is based on the “free trade” moral relativism and realpolitik you espouse.
Why would you be against buying control of another countries resources to benefit big businesses?

What? me? Free trade? I am insulted. I believe in protectionism, empowering ones own nation but one that crucially DOES NOT MEDDLE IN THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF OTHERS.

Absent pure isolationism, mutually exclusive value systems will conflict.

Not really. Conflicting interests will conflict. Because that's competition for the same limited resources. But conflicting values can and do coexist just fine as long as their interests are not conflicting. That's how marriages work. And social tolerance. And families. And every workplace ever. You work and live just fine with people you don't conflict with over real material interests unless you are a fanatical ideologue.

But note I am hardly calling for a crusade here, simply that we stop exploiting and subsidizing such abuses to drive up wealth inequality and in the name of “cheap” imports.

And why not? There are plenty of reasons why promoting domestic industry as opposed to cheap imports is a good thing. But morality is, and I must spit here, not one of them. Morality is newer a good reason to make geopolitical decisions. That's how crusades happen.

Trade restrictions on countries engaging in behavior we would not tolerate in our own economic systems is quite different than saying we must launch a military crusade.

No, they are not. Either way you ruin nations and wreck the lives of innocent citizens therein for no reason other than to feel the selfrighteous glee of having punished someone you are morally opposed to. That is no different than cult members who shun those among them that act out of line. Only you ruin the lives of millions, not single individuals.

It is simply saying if they want to trade with us, they have to play by our rules to some degree.

And what right do you have to set the rules of what is and is not acceptable for a nation to do within its own borders? Who made you the arbiter of good vs evil government? Who made you the judge of a good vs bad society?

Which is only fair. If a company in the US is not allowed to benefit from forced labor of ethnic minorities (because we banned that in 1865) why should that same company be able to use slaves again via outsourcing? If something is illegal here, it should be illegal or at least very restricted to use it to outsource.

Why? I mean, by the same logic countries with stricter labor laws than america, and let's face it that means the entire civilized world, should isolate you in the same manner. Corporations should obey the laws of the nation they operate in. And if you want to keep them from operating in other countries just use protectionist measures like tariffs to actually bring those jobs home instead of moralizing.

What we find important to prioritize in our domestic economic regulations and civil rights, we should also apply to trade, to prevent encouraging the behaviors we claim are unacceptable.

Because that's not how rights work. What you do in your own nation is your choice. It is your right as a nation to be as liberal and progressive or as despotic and regressive as you wish to be. But in order for you to have that right and enjoy it undisturbed you have to ensure everyone gets the same right of choice. Because you are NOT special. Your choice is NOT special. And if you take that right away from others for the crime of using it in ways you disprove off than you will loose it as well.

And it is our sovereign right to restrict trade with us for any reason whatsoever.
If they argue sovereignty means they can treat their own people in this manner, fine, but we do not have to economically support it. Our sovereignty means we can refuse to buy what they are selling and restrict their government from propagandizing it here.

Your rights stop when the rights of another begin. That is why you can't use your right of free speech to intimidate others into doing your bidding.

Oh so you do support protectionism? Then why would you oppose protectionism being used against the PRC? Why do you oppose us cutting off trade with places we find to be threats?

“Your rights stop where the rights of another begin”. That contradicts your other statements. What about the rights of the Uighyurs?
People rights are being violated here. That is the point. If sovereignty is limited to the what does not interfere with tho rights of others, then rights are being violated here. You have no right to trade with foreign contrives either either so sanctions do not violate rights.

Not wanting to buy something from another place violates no rights.
Because there is no right to unlimited free trade, which your yourself admit!

Foreign trade is affects domestic policy, restricting trade is our sovereign right, again something you do not dispute if you support protectionism. What you buy changed things own domestic affairs.

Trade restrictions violate no rights, but genocide does violate rights.

And sure all regimes require the de facto consent of SOME of the governed, but not all of the governed. Are you saying the Jews consented to the Holocaust!?

You do not need the support of everyone. If the majority chooses to genocide a minority it does not mean the members of that minority agreed obviously. You only need the support of the enough people to stay in peer, not all the people, not even a majority of people.

Also now rebellion is justified? So the Uighyurs would be right to rebel?

As far as leaving why should people be forced to flee their own lands? Uighyurs have lived there a long time, why should they have to flee simply because they were conquered by an outside power?
Pretty sure conquering a place by force violates what they want.

Now sure if a European country finds US labor law are unfairly undercutting their own labor laws, and wants to hit us with a tariff as a result, well that is there right. Any country can limit or cut off trade with us for any reason they want. Of course.

We choose what is good and bad from our perspective and thus we have a right to include that in our trade relations and negotiations.

Sure we might not have to agree on everything, I can work with someone I have a political disagreement with. Yes. But that only goes so far. If someone is outright advocating genocide I probably will not hire them or choose to work with them if I do not have too. Let along if the are actually doing it. I am not going to hire or work with someone currently committing murder obviously!

Your ideas here are a completely incoherent and contradictory mess.
Especially as you are quite the moralist yourself.

You find what I am advocating objectionable to your moral code, and say I should not be able to do it. And if I did it I should be sanctioned presumably!

[Ansarre]

Beijing needs regime change in the next couple of decades or else the whole world will be lost to China.

[Britannia Maior]

Beijing needs regime change in the next couple of decades or else the whole world will be lost to China.

In your nightmares, maybe, but not realistically. I would rather not see the world economy dip even further thanks to a war that’ll ultimately achieve nothing.

[Novus America]

Beijing needs regime change in the next couple of decades or else the whole world will be lost to China.

In your nightmares, maybe, but not realistically. I would rather not see the world economy dip even further thanks to a war that’ll ultimately achieve nothing.

War is not the answer, but trade restrictions are. We do not need to march in an change things by force (which we cannot realistically do) but we can refuse to stop subsidizing and funding the behavior of the Beijing regime. On numerous grounds. If moral grounds like human rights abuses are not your cup of tea, their widespread use of state subsidized dumping and deliberately predatory trade policies against your own country should be enough, as well as their political influence operations. It is not like this is their own objectionable behavior.

[Ansarre]

Beijing needs regime change in the next couple of decades or else the whole world will be lost to China.

In your nightmares, maybe, but not realistically. I would rather not see the world economy dip even further thanks to a war that’ll ultimately achieve nothing.

Who mentioned war?