• nednobbins
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    20 days ago

    That’s because OP wasn’t talking about general “crimes against humanity”. They’re making the specific, and significantly stronger claim, of “genocide”.

    • Lianodel@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      20 days ago

      Before going any further, can we at least agree that the treatment of Uyghurs by the government of China rises to the level of crimes against humanity?

      • nednobbins
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        15
        ·
        20 days ago

        So you’re saying that instead of addressing the issue at hand you want to start with a premise of “China bad.” and just go from there. Great.

        • YeetPics@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          20 days ago

          Twas a yes or no question

          And all through the house

          Not a tankie was answering,

          Not even right now

        • Lianodel@ttrpg.network
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          20 days ago

          That’s not even remotely what I said, implied, or believe. Would you like to respond to what I did say, or put words in my mouth?

          • nednobbins
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            20 days ago

            It wasn’t the topic of the thread and it’s not germane to the question of evidence.

            It is, at best, a distraction.

            • Lianodel@ttrpg.network
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              11
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              20 days ago

              No, it’s not.

              My points were twofold. First, to find out if we could find some common ground. Second, to find out if you actually care about sources and evidence, or judge them retroactively based on whether or not you like the conclusions.

              The latter makes the conversation a non-starter, because even within a single report, you’ll interpret it in different ways. Within the very constrained lens of not containing the word genocide, to you, it ought to be sufficient. When it comes to crimes against humanity, you don’t want to talk about it, start attacking, and dismiss it as “a distraction.” On the prior point, I hope that your frustration comes from some doubt within you, causing you discomfort. Keep pulling on that thread.

              Good luck with everything. I hope things get better going forward.

              • nednobbins
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                18 days ago

                Yes, it is.

                Your claim of looking for common ground is bullshit. According to the Rome statue, crimes against humanity consist of systemic cases of:

                • Murder
                • Extermination [including “the intentional infliction of conditions of life, inter alia the deprivation of access to food and medicine, calculated to bring about the destruction of part of a population”]
                • Enslavement Deportation or forcible transfer of population
                • Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law
                • Torture
                • Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity
                • Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court
                • Enforced disappearance of persons
                • The crime of apartheid
                • Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health

                There are plenty of claims that China is practicing these but a glaring lack of evidence.

                If you actually wanted to find common ground on that list we could start looking at the biggest perpetrators. A few that stand out is that “enslavement” has a specific exception in the US constitution. It’s conveniently tied to prisoners, of which we have the largest number in the world. Or you might look at our allies, who continue to practice both apartheid and murder.

                No. You want to stake an other unsupported claim as “common ground.”

                • Lianodel@ttrpg.network
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  18 days ago

                  The point about common ground was to give you a clear opportunity to present your position and intentions. I had my assumptions, but didn’t want to unfairly ascribe them to you. It turns out I was right, unfortunately, but as a matter of difference between us, I wanted to address what you actually think, feel, and say. I would appreciate it if you did the same, but you haven’t so far.

                  So to address another position you ascribed to me: I can easily aknowledge that the US is complicit in genocide, war crimes, slavery, and other crimes against humanity, and has been throughout its history. That does not mean the US has a monopoly on evil. That kind of campism is silly.

                  I’ve had a remarkably similar conversation to this a while back, except the topic was Palestine, and the other user was a hardcore Zionist. It literally began when I said, word for word, “killing civilians is bad.” To paraphrase the rest:

                  “So it’s bad when Hamas kills Israeli civilians?”

                  “Of course. Is it bad when Israel kills Palestinian civilians?”

                  Then the same kind of argument followed. Deflections, straw men, selective interpretation and acknowledgement of evidence, personal attacks… the works. It doesn’t matter what the protesters say or do, or how many of the protestors are Jews; they’re pro-Hamas, anti-Semitic. Any source supporting Israel is valid, anything condemning them is fake news. I was an idiot, I was the one arguing in bad faith… you know. That kind of stuff.

                  I don’t know you, or what’s in your heart. I hope that the aggression is coming from discomfort rooted in a sense of doubt, which I can also hope you pursue. You can believe me or not—so far, you haven’t—but I really mean it when I say I hope you have a better go of things from here on out. If the nature of this conversation changes, I’m here, but if it doesn’t, then it’s run its course.

                  • nednobbins
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    18 days ago

                    No one needs a monopoly on evil. That would absolutely be silly. I’m also not making any claims that it’s good to kill civilians. It’s bad whoever does it.

                    What I am arguing against is blatant hypocrisy. If there’s some standard to which we want to hold China then we should be clear what that standard is, what level of evidence we require to establish a violation of the standards and hold everyone to those same levels.

                    It’s ridiculous to claim that China is conducting a genocide on hearsay and circumstantial evidence when that’s not the norm. It’s absurd to advocate for the isolation of some nations when we’re perfectly happy to deal with other nations that do worse, especially when the US does worse itself. It’s just dumb to assume that everyone who doesn’t buy a paper thin body of evidence is a fascist.

                    It’s not aggression, it’s anger. I’ll tell you exactly where it’s coming from. All my life I’ve been taught that racism is evil. I’ve been taught that we should require primary sources when making claim. I’ve been taught that when people consistently jump to conclusions about a group of people it’s almost certainly a form of latent racism.

                    I see these posts as a new flavor of Yellow Peril. I see the same BS that people use to excuse the mistreatment of other minorities in the US.