The people that try to equate fake genocide with real genocide are like the school staff punishing bully and victim alike. They are enabling the abuses. Also it must be deeply insulting to the real victims in gaza.
We’re very butthurt about our failed color revolution, and we’re very concerned that we can’t even manage to make lemonade out of our lemon.
Westerners, every time:
Yeah like frig China. Why aren’t you killing them? Whats wrong with you? Clearly the most morally correct thing to do is exterminate them, what are you trying to hide?
The US liberates muslims (from the mortal coil) while China enslaves muslims (by making them part of the productive forces).
Its only legal if you just want to steal their natural resources
So concerned that we bribed foreign terrorists to blow shit up in Xinjiang, forcing China to spend on education and job programs there.
These people, who don’t know shit about fuck, are absolutely sure that they already know everything that needs to be known, and that we don’t know shit about fuck.
And in twenty years they’ll say they knew it all along.
This is some next level racism.
Please elaborate: where’s the racism?
This has been the US playbook since before we were born, and funding, arming, and influencing Salafi jihadists in particular has been going on since at least the 1980s. Previously:
6 December 1993: Anti-Soviet warrior puts his army on the road to peace
FAIR: Forgotten Coverage of Afghan ‘Freedom Fighters’ But the U.S. government and the American press have not always opposed Afghan extremists. During the 1980s, the Mujahiddin guerrilla groups battling Soviet occupation had key features in common with the Taliban. In many ways, the Mujahiddin groups acted as an incubator for the later rise of the Taliban in the 1990s.
Despite CIA denials of any direct Agency support for Bin Laden’s activities, a considerable body of circumstantial evidence suggests the contrary. During the 1980s, Bin Laden’s activities in Afghanistan closely paralleled those of the CIA. Bin Laden held accounts in the Bank for Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), the bank the CIA used to finance its own covert actions. Bin Laden worked especially closely with Hekmatyar—the CIA’s favored Mujahiddin commander. In 1989, the U.S. shipped high-powered sniper rifles to a Mujahiddin faction that included bin Laden, according to a former bin Laden aide.
Listen, I’m sure there’s a very good reason why we have radically different policies towards Afghani Muslims and Uyghur Muslims, despite the fact they share a border and a litany of cultural practices.
“Our genocides are the good genocides” thinking persisting this long is baffling. Even more disturbing is these people are in power.
lol seriously. Most obvious propaganda scam of all time. Libs fell hook line and sinker though.
When lemmy.lib sends its people, they’re not sending their best.
Unfortunately, they are.
No need to censor, you can say A on lemmy.
LAMBO /s
Translation, we are very concerned because someone else is doing the killing, they took ur, joooobsss
Well, they can’t let another country move into their game.
Thats because those are “terrorists” so its completely fine now.
Hot take:
The US has committed horrifying war crimes and crimes against humanity against Muslims and continues to do so.
And so does China
Its always fascinating to see the war between Nazis and Tankies fight over which imperial power is based, rather than demonstrating a working frontal lobe and damning both for their crimes.
And so does China
The only “evidence” of this comes from the empire and is demonstrably false
Idk man, this page has over 401 citations from various sources.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Uyghurs_in_China?wprov=sfla1
Edit: This also has a lot of citations ns from various sources too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamophobia_in_China?wprov=sfla1
And you’ve read zero of them.
Sounds like cope
Someone once put together a book titled, “One Hundred Authors Against Einstein.” Einstein dismissed the book with the quip, “Why one hundred? If I were really wrong, they’d only need one.”
Sounds like a colossal reach at best, and pathetic cope at worst.
You understand the colossal differences between multiple independent journalists researching and reporting on the same topic, and a large organized group of pseudointellectuals trying to disprove a single person based on vibes alone, right?
You seem to be very desperately, and pathetically holding onto a form of fallacy of composition:
No, I’m simply calling out a lazy gish gallop. It’s the same in both cases.
How many sources are listed on the Wikipedia page for Christianity? If I accept your logic as valid, it seems I’ll have to convert.
Ah yes. Libopedia the pinnicle of (western) truth!
Wikipedia is one of the most reliable sources of public information, most especially do to the international collaboration efforts on it.
You can’t just dismiss a source on the basis that you don’t like it. You need to provide actual evidence that the source is untrustworthy
Wikipedia is one of the most reliable sources of public information
Yeah if you’re looking up wood joints and math theorems. Not if you’re trying to learn anything about politics or history that ties into the interests of the systems and institutions that filter the media allowed as valid citations.
You need to provide actual evidence that the source is untrustworthy
Do they ban the New York Times because they lied the country into every war it’s been in since McKinley?
Whataboutism, and possibly propaganda. They are both horrible and should not exist. Moral superiority doesn’t matter if people are being systematically murdered.
When dealing with hypocrites, whataboutism is the correct and logically consistent response.
People who complain about whataboutism are 99% hypocrites whose hypocrisy has been pointed out. And they have no rational arguments to defend their view other than deflecting the topic.
Citations Needed podcast:
Whataboutism - The Media’s Favorite Rhetorical Shield Against Criticism of US PolicySince the beginning of what’s generally called ‘RussiaGate’ three years ago, pundits, media outlets, even comedians have all become insta-experts on supposed Russian propaganda techniques. The most cunning of these tricks, we are told, is that of “whataboutism” – a devious Soviet tactic of deflecting criticism by pointing out the accusers’ hypocrisy and inconsistencies. The tu quoque - or, “you, also” - fallacy, but with a unique Slavic flavor of nihilism, used by Trump and leftists alike in an effort to change the subject and focus on the faults of the United States rather than the crimes of Official State Enemies.
But what if “whataboutism” isn’t describing a propaganda technique, but in fact is one itself: a zombie phrase that’s seeped into everyday liberal discourse that – while perhaps useful in the abstract - has manifestly turned any appeal to moral consistency into a cunning Russian psyop. From its origins in the Cold War as a means of deflecting and apologizing for Jim Crow to its braindead contemporary usage as a way of not engaging any criticism of the United States as the supposed arbiter of human rights, the term “whataboutism” has become a term that - 100 percent of the time - is simply used to defend and legitimizing American empire’s moral narratives.
Jesus Christ, “Whataboutism” really does just mean anything other than complete blind belief in the American Nat-sec blob now. “Oh, you don’t believe that people who activity cheer on the genocide of Palestinians are being sincere in their claimed concern for Chinese Muslims? WHATABOUTISM!”
people are being systematically murdered.
I assume you’re referring to Gaza? Because not even the most frothing sinophobes have tried to claim a “systematic murder” of Muslims in China, so if you’re not referring to Gaza, you are literally making up lies whole cloth.
Thanks for the vaguepost 👍
Are we to ignore the obvious evils of US Imperialism?
This meme doesn’t need the word “Muslims”
More likely the meme went over your head.
Substitute “people” for “Muslim”. The point is still valid.
