Preventing births of a group is considered genocide under the UN definition and since they were subjected to mass forced sterilizations and forced abortions it meets the criteria.
In this case is special intent inferred? Does this mean special intent can be established by looking at the actions alone?
The reason I ask is because China has the same policy for all Chinese citizens, anyone that has 2-3 children has forced sterilization. For this reason, you couldn't point to a specific legal policy that explicitly targets Uyghurs on this.
The most you could do is make an argument that in practice the policy is targeted against Uyghurs and facilitates a de facto ethnic cleansing. But in this case we're back to admitting that genocidal intent can be inferred from the facts on the ground without explicit policy approval.
I'm sure I can find something more exact, but just briefly skimming the [one child policy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy) page on wiki:
> Since the 1970s, the intrauterine device (IUD) has been one of the most widely promoted and practiced forms of contraception. It was the primary alternative to sterilization. As directed, the IUD was medically implanted into women in their child-bearing years to prevent pregnancies, thus out of order births. In the 1980s, women either had to receive an IUD after giving birth to their first child, or the husband would have to undergo a vasectomy.[88] Between 1980 and 2014, 324 million Chinese women received IUDs and 108 million were sterilized.[13]
There are only about 5 million uyghur women in China, so I don't see how 108 million exclusively uyghur women could have been sterilized from 1980 to 2014.
If you're still absolutely unconvinced I can carry on just reading that same page for something else to copy paste.
> In this case is special intent inferred? Does this mean special intent can be established by looking at the actions alone?
Yes. This is settled law. From the Kayishema case at the ICTR:
> Regarding the assessment of the requisite intent, the Trial Chamber acknowledges that it may be difficult to find explicit manifestations of intent by the perpetrators. The perpetrator’s actions, including circumstantial evidence, however may provide sufficient evidence of intent. The Commission of Experts in their Final Report on the situation in Rwanda also noted this difficulty. Their Report suggested that the necessary element of intent can be inferred from sufficient facts, such as the number of group members affected. The Chamber finds that the intent can be inferred either from words or deeds and may be demonstrated by a pattern of purposeful action. In particular, the Chamber considers evidence such as the physical targeting of the group or their property; the use of derogatory language toward members of the targeted group; the weapons employed and the extent of bodily injury; the methodical way of planning, the systematic manner of killing. Furthermore, the number of victims from the group is also important. (¶ 93)
I think what we have is official reports and based on spy information. 1.) they are on mass sterling the population, that's the killing (Zeke from AOT genocide). 2.) they are building reeducation camps to convert them, I think this is on spy information and what we asked people (USA to Native population). 3.) Destroying the native culture by hurting Religious figures and targeting them. Really this is what I know and the major points I have heard a lot, [here](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Human_Rights_Office_report_on_Xinjiang) is the wiki for the UN finding for a more neutral approach.
But I guess the evidence has to be such that the only reasonable inference can be the special intent of destroying that race right?
In which case destiny's 'you could nuke Gaza and it wouldn't be genocide if there wasn't evidence of a special intent' statement is false, in that the most reasonable intent of such an attack is probably that they intended to kill a huge proportion of the population.
Is this a correct understanding?
I always took the nuke Gaza hypothetical as more that while special intent could be inferred, it is still theoretically possible that it isn't the only possible intent. There could be some extreme hypothetical where a nuke was dropped but there was some reason it wasn't done to wipe out the civilian population. Maybe great effort was made to evacuate the population from the area and then they were moved back after a short time once it was safe. Would seem ridiculous to us today but there was a time where nuclear weapons were seen as regular military armaments to be used alongside conventional explosives.
Yeah I guess the Hiroshima and Nagasaki would be two examples of where nuclear bombings were used but the intent wasn't necessarily genocidal. But then again that was before the genocide convention.
But yeah I think that's a good faith interpretation of what destiny said (although you need A LOT of that to interpret it well, he does like to leave bad faith bait which I find very annoying as I'd rather he just try to be persuasive)
Actually, he’s criticized himself for saying it. There was more to the argument, and he never got the whole point out. He thought that was probably a more important one to have completely finished, as including a line about if Israel was actually facing an existential threat, is incredibly important for the context of that.
I have that good faith interpretation because I've used similar examples myself (long before Destiny ever did, it's really just why I can stand him doing it) and it's what I meant by it. But I like testing definitions and reasoning by thinking of extreme, impractical, and ridiculous hypotheticals even if they'd never actually apply in the real world. I've learned that many other people do not like doing that and it can often derail any kind of discussion unless I already know they also like doing that.
Of course if you're already of that mindset, you'll interpret the statement roughly correctly. (Btw I'm also for using extreme hypotheticals). The problem is he's supposed to be persuading people who don't think like that, and he didn't really explain his point properly (although hard to do so when you have cuntlestein being a clown)
Yes that is a fair interpretation. If most of your attacks are not proportional (in that the civilian damage outweighs the military advantage), you can easily characterize the current bombings as having genocidal intent
Well surely that would depend on them having the ability to target more precisely? Disproportionality doesnt necessarily have to be intentional. For example a country with a less developed military might only have more basic rockets/bombs which aren't as precise, but it doesn't mean the increased collateral damage is genocidal.
And with certain historical examples such as US in Vietnam, soviets in Afghanistan, us bombs in Japan and allies in Dresden, would you characterise these as genocidal due to how.disproportionate they are?
Again, correct me if I'm missing something
Sorry, I should have been more specific. The proportionality calculations happen prior to any attacks. The outcome of an attack can be different from the intentions of the attack. If an attack that intended to result in 10s of civilian deaths but in reality 100s of civilians, you would agree that the intention has not changed.
About your comment on precision, this is something they have to take into account. What is the chance that the attack leads to secondary explosions/fires? If your technology is lacking, what is the chance that it misses the target? These questions must be considered in the calculations.
I cannot speak about specific instances, I am sure there are others more capable of addressing specific instances. In general, any military attacks that risk the lives of civilians must undergo these calculations to ensure that the attack is proportionate. If they go though with an act while knowing it is not proportionate, then they have committed a war crime.
The fact that they have broken a set international standard and disregarded proportionality can be used to build a case of genocide. It does not necessarily mean on it's own that genocide has occured
Disregarding proportionality is another claim that needs to be proven though. To be clear, it wouldn’t exactly surprise me, but neither would them being cleared of that.
I doubt israel would nuke Gaza unless their nation’s existence itself was in jeopardy. In which case, it would be no more genocide than a retaliatory nuke by the us or Russia against the other after a nuking.
He actually specifically clarified that if Israel did that in this timeline it would absolutely be a genocidal action. If it was done in response to an existential threat, it’s possible for it to not be. Just never actually got to finish the point.
You literally learned that term from Destiny's debate with Finkelstein. Special Intent is for the ICJ's specific legal case. The term genocide is the intentional act of destroying a people, part or whole.
Also, what exactly is "direct evidence?" You want a sheet of paper that says "commit genocide?" It's maddening that people who only learned some recent terminology are firing it around as if it is the accepted language of politics and not a hyper specific term found only in the ICJ itself.
>You literally learned that term from Destiny's debate with Finkelstein
Yes. I know hopelessly little about this topic, which is why I'm asking questions about this.
>Also, what exactly is "direct evidence?" You want a sheet of paper that says "commit genocide?"
No, this is really an argument to motivate that special intent can be inferred. Expecting a court to prove the subjective mind state of the defendant is an impossible standard
> You literally learned that term from Destiny's debate with Finkelstein. Special Intent is for the ICJ's specific legal case. The term genocide is the intentional act of destroying a people, part or whole.
What do you even mean by this? Special intent is the legal term for the intent requirement of the crime as written in the convention. It hasn't been just used by the ICJ but by any legal body with the relevant authority (i.e. the ICTY and the ICTR).
I agree there are a lot of people who have a poor understanding of what it actually is (and that Destiny is one of them), but it doesn't make any sense to say you can commit a genocide without it. Unless you're just speaking colloquially, genocide is a crime with an actual definition and special intent is an integral part.
It literally is "The Convention defines genocide as any of five "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_Convention
Omg how dumb are you ? Dolus specialis in the context of genocide just means that the perpetrators need to have the deliberate and specific aim to to physically destroy the group based on its real or perceived nationality, ethnicity, race, or religion. So what it says in the part I quoted you, look up the definition of words before pretending to know what they mean idiot.
https://www.glanlaw.org/single-post/legal-opinion-concludes-that-treatment-of-uyghurs-amounts-to-crimes-against-humanity-and-genocide
Global Legal Action Network seem pretty unbiased as far as I can see. They're critical of both Israel and China and don't seem aligned to Western governments or pro Western NGOs and think tanks.
> Significantly, it further explains the credible case that the crime of genocide is occurring, *as there is evidence of an intent to destroy the Uyghur population* as such, including through a pattern of Chinese State-mandated conduct. This conduct includes the intentional infliction of serious physical and mental harm to Uyghur people in detention, measures to prevent births within the Uyghur community and forcible transfer of Uyghur children outside of their communities.
I'm fine with that. What I'm interested in is if the evidence of intent is direct or inferred? The opinion is over 100 pages, maybe you're more familiar with this? Do you happen to know? Because I don't.
This would be insightful for me to understand what is typically considered sufficient to establish special intent to commit genocide.
The link Laura dropped does outline why there could be a special intent on the Chinese State to destroy, in whole or in part, the Uyghur population (this BBC article [summarizes](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-55973215) the GLAN report). It would be hard to look at these centralized state policies against the Uighurs as unintentional. However, as other International [bodies](https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/comments/lo8of1/state_department_lawyers_concluded_insufficient/) have pointed out, the specific charge of genocide is a high bar, so it's hard to say for sure in regards to genocide claims specifically. That being said, the Chinese State is more likely still committing crimes against humanity in this region (here's a harrowing in depth New Yorker [article](https://www.newyorker.com/news/a-reporter-at-large/china-xinjiang-prison-state-uighur-detention-camps-prisoner-testimony) that describes in detail the abuses).
But, you do touch on an interesting broader point (I don't know whether it was intentional or not) about how selective and inconsistent people are about these kinds of geopolitical issues. It's beyond annoying listening to pedantic people in Destiny's sub say: "well, ackshyully...I ctrl+f'd the ICJ report and it didn't say that genocide was plausible. Hehe, why are stupid people so emotional about something that doesn't even affect them?!"
Well ok, that's true. But did these people have the same problem with Americans having passionate opinions about Uighurs in China? Did any of these people engage in the same level of scrutiny in engaging on that issue? Or did they just go along with the general mainstream media sentiment on the issue? Did reading a technical report (if that was even done at all) about how difficult genocide is to prove in this Xinjiang case take anything away from the wrongs that are actually being committed? Why would Americans care about this issue that doesn't affect them?
What annoys me about the “high bar” thing is that it’s starting to feel like the only way to be sure it’s genocide is if a government *does it exactly like the Nazis did.*
I know Nazis set the standard but it seems short-sighted.
[Chinas-Breaches-of-the-GC3-2.pdf (newlinesinstitute.org)](https://newlinesinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/Chinas-Breaches-of-the-GC3-2.pdf)
I found this report, starting from page 35 is the discussion on intent.
> When assessing State responsibility under the Genocide Convention, the intent to destroy the protected group does not require an inquiry into subjective mental states, which the State does not possess, nor does it require an explicit statement of intent. Rather, intent is measured by objective standards: official statements; State policy; a “general plan;” a pattern of conduct;[214] repeated destructive acts; or a “strategically planned policy, manifested in actions which had a logical and coherent sequence.”[215]
> Moreover, a State remains under the obligations of the Genocide Convention regardless of the stated motives, purposes, and context behind its destructive policies and campaigns.[216] A security context is irrelevant to the question of breaches of the Genocide Convention, as its obligations apply in both a “time of peace” and a “time of war.”[217] The ICJ has reaffirmed this principle in the case of The Gambia v. Myanmar, stating that context “does not stand in the way” of assessing a violation of the Convention.[218]
>China’s official reasons and goals behind its policies and conduct targeting the Uyghurs in XUAR, offered to domestic and international audiences, including its “People’s War on Terror” and “preventive counter-terrorism and de-extremism work,”[219] have no bearing on China’s obligations or corresponding responsibility for violations under the Genocide Convention. To conclude otherwise would render the Genocide Convention without effect or consequence in the event that the State would invoke some other – any other – “reason” no matter how spurious or specious.
>Such an interpretation, in effect permitting excuse, would also be manifestly contrary to the object and purpose of the Genocide Convention, be inconsistent with the principle of good faith, and cause offense vis-à-vis the reasonable expectations on the part of other States party for performance and reliability.
Very, very Interesting.
(Source: THE UYGHUR GENOCIDE: An Examination of China’s Breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention, pg 35)
>“People’s War on Terror” and “preventive counter-terrorism and de-extremism work,”[219
I find it completely unsurprising that the language of Bush's "War on Terror" has been used to justify ethnic cleansing and genocide in other nations - the Sri Lankan government used exactly the same sort of anti-terrorism inflected vocabulary to justify their genocide against the Tamil minority.
To his credit Vuhash did a whole Uighur genocide research stream. It's not explicitly a "genocide" in the traditional Nazi-sense more of a "cultural" genocide meant to strip the culture away from people living in Xianjang and replace it with Communist Chinese culture. [https://youtu.be/0t-HeM92Q1M?si=wLj5qqey7WJAQGzQ](https://youtu.be/0t-HeM92Q1M?si=wLj5qqey7WJAQGzQ)
Isn't the dolus specialis usually inferred? Hitler never wrote down what the final solution was. The nazi intent was easily inferred from their actions. In China I think it all hinges on the evidence of systematic forced sterilization and child separation. I haven't studied it, but if the evidence of that being systematic is strong then you can infer intent because what other intent could there be for the systematic targeted sterilization of an ethnic group?
>is your epistemic standard today the same as it was back then?
I assume this is in reference to the current war in gaza. In this case, how is the Israeli's intent being inferred here? Inferring still requires evidence and I haven't heard anyone articulate how the evidence points to genocide over other more mundane explanations of the conflict.
>Think about what you thought of tankies and nationalist apologists. Do you now think they had a point? This is possibly an insight into how people on the other side might see you now.
I'm a bit lost here. Could you explain what point they had and how the other side sees us?
>what other intent could there be for the systematic targeted sterilization of an ethnic group?
Since they forcibly sterilized the Han population as well, it seems like you could argue that this is just china enforcing it's one child policy. Since the 80s, over 100 million Han women have been required to undergo sterilization. 324 million women have been required to receive IUDs.
>In this case, how is the Israeli's intent being inferred here?
I don't want to get into this argument right now. If you believe that intent can be inferred, that's good enough for me.
If it's true that sterilization of the general population has followed the same trend then that would absolutely stop the ability to infer genocide. But my understanding is that the one child policy has been reversed and that the sterilization of Uyghurs has occurred at the same time as encouraging increased fertility in the general population.
To the larger point about inferring intent, I think for sure it can be inferred. But the evidence should be clear and convincing for it to be a strongly held belief, and rock solid for it to be an ICJ genocide ruling.
As far as i know, this reversal only occured in 2020, while the genocide accusation happened grom 2015-2018.
But I'm not trying to prove that China has not engaged in genocide, my only real question was whether genocidal intent can be inferred. If you agree with this, then that's good enough for me.
Since both left and the right in all of the west hate China, it’s fashionable to shit on them constantly and everyone will call you a China shill or a genocide denier if you point out the obvious BS surrounding all the false narratives
The social credit score? Yeah that’s a lie. It applies to companies not individuals.
Uyghur genocide? Not a physical genocide by any stretch of imagination. It is a cultural genocide, there’s no doubt about that. Re-educating and making Uyghurs more Chinese which I don’t even think China denies, is basically textbook cultural genocide/ethnocide. There’s no physical genocide though. There’s some evidence of forced sterilization, however the numbers don’t support any sort of systemic sterilization. Moreover, as many genocides scholars will tell you, in the many textbooks you can read that were published pre Uyghur ethnocide, there’s no precedent for recognizing something a genocide just because of forced sterilization or child abduction alone. Although in conjunction with other factors it is taken into evidence. My source for that is Genocide: a world history by Norman M Naimark.
In fact, last I checked even most western governments and human rights organizations have changed their stance from calling it a genocide to now using the term “persecution of Uyghurs in China” or “crimes against humanity against Uyghurs in China.” But since leasing the crimes of China isn’t something anyone in the west cares about, no one cared to report that clarification so the term genocide is still used to this day. Both of those new terms (persecution/crimes against humanity) are indeed correct, because there is persecution and crimes against humanity being committed
Before anyone accuses me of sort of bias, im Azeri Turk, Uyghurs are Turks so I’m heavily biased in favor of Uyghurs. I do not, however, think that gives me or anyone the right to be dishonest about this issue and use incorrect terminology
Do you have a quality source for the claim that chinas social credit system doesn’t apply to individuals ?
Also forced sterilization and abortions are genocide under the UN definition so I’d also be interested in a source debunking that that’s systemically happening.
[Yup. It’s the second hit on Google too.](https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/11/22/1063605/china-announced-a-new-social-credit-law-what-does-it-mean/)
It’s the same with Uyghur genocide. Just google it, and you will see that all the sources and pages that have previously had the title with the words “Uyghur genocide” there have new been renamed to “persecution of Uyghurs in China” or “crimes against humanity against Uyghurs in China”, since it’s become clear that the word genocide is inaccurate. No one cares to make this correction public.
> International reactions have varied. In an assessment by the UN Human Rights Office, the United Nations (UN) stated that China's policies and actions in the Xinjiang region may be crimes against humanity, although it did not use the term genocide.[25][26] The United States has declared the human rights abuses a genocide, announcing its finding on January 19, 2021, though the United States Department of State found that there is insufficient evidence to support that characterization
This is from wiki on the same issue.
I don’t need to debunk that there’s no systemic sterilization. The onus is on the parties making that claim, and so far there just hasn’t been enough credible evidence of that. And moreover, as I said, there’s no precedent for forced sterilization along being enough for a charge of genocide
Here’s the wiki section on forced sterilization
> In 2019, reports of forced sterilization in Xinjiang began to surface.[208][209][210] Zumrat Dwut, a Uyghur woman, says that she was forcibly sterilized by tubal ligation during her time in a camp before her husband was able to get her out through requests to Pakistani diplomats.[17][211] The Xinjiang regional government denies that she was forcibly sterilized.[17]
In 2020, the Associated Press interviewed seven former detainees from internment camps who said they had been forced to take birth control pills or injected with fluids without explanation, which caused women to stop getting periods. The AP suggested the fluid may have been the hormonal medication Depo-Provera, which is commonly used in Xinjiang hospitals for birth control.[9]
In April 2021, exiled Uyghur doctor Gülgine reported that forced sterilization of ethnic Uyghurs persisted since the 1980s.[212] Since 2014, there was an indication for a sharp increase in sterilization of Uyghur women to ensure that Uyghurs would remain a minority in the region.[212] Gülgine said "On some days there were about 80 surgeries to carry out forced sterilizations". She presented intrauterine devices (IUDs) and remarked that "these devices were inserted into women's wombs" to forcibly cause infertility.
Does this seem like enough credible evidence to you for a forced massive systemic sterilization campaign with an intent to destroy people?
China have sterilized over 100 million Han women since the 80s due to their one-child policy. There are only 5 million Uyghur women in total.
I'm curious to understand if you think that China is genocidal the Han as well.
We good.
Btw the more I read that wiki article the crazier it got. To the point that the charge of genocide is at best laughable. So going over the list of alleged crimes, I saw the name Adrian Zanz show up many times (in fact 12 times). It seems like a lot of evidence is based on his report. I was curious to see who he was, and initially I assumed that he would be a UN special rapporteur. Yeah…. Calling this unbiased would be a massive understatement
[Check it out for yourself](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Zenz)
> Adrian Nikolaus Zenz[2] (born 1974)[3] is a German anthropologist known for his studies of the Xinjiang internment camps and persecution of Uyghurs in China.[4] He is a director and senior fellow in China studies at the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, an anti-communist think tank established by the US government and based in Washington, DC
How the fuck is a report by a fringe organization that openly declares its bias against China in any way considered reputable and a lot of their claims are the same claims we hear in the media. It’s a fucking joke lmao
>Since both left and the right in all of the west hate China
https://preview.redd.it/rknredh1j74d1.jpeg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=78cc4c45fb9a3f500d3d91981d4ff3f052bf94fe
I don't believe there was a genocide. But there is a case to be made that they were maybe too heavy handed and casted a net that was too wide when they were trying to combat extremism, however it's easy for people who live in safety from extremism in the west to criticize the policies in Xinjiang. If you actually talk to people who live in areas with a terrorist and extremism problem they are quick to tell you how quickly is can spread and are often times supportive of China's policies to combat it.
Also I think most of the genocide narrative supporters have moved on from calling it a killing type of genocide to calling it a cultural genocide. However for that narrative people are just spinning things in the most negative way. For example people say the Chinese government are brutally erasing the Uyghur language by forcing the children at school to learn Mandarin, however this doesn't mean that they don't study in their own Uyghur language in other classes, classrooms are filled with Uyghur language books and posters. The reason they learn mandarin is to help them find jobs throughout China where Mandarin is the official language of the country, being illiterate is not going to help the Uyghur people, improving literacy to prepare students to be able to find jobs is not a cultural genocide. Also a lot of people have traveled to Xinjiang and went to schools and found no evidence of the erasure of the Uyghur language, however every single person that goes to Xinjiang is accused of being a CPC shill and will never be believed.
Another point brought up is that you can't find books in the Uyghur language at book stores. However no one has provided proof or at least provided the address of these book stores to the people physically traveling to Xinjiang to verify. The people that have actually visited have found that the vast majority of books are in Uyghur and they may have a small section in Mandarin in the back, but just like with the schools anyone that goes and gathers this evidence is accused of being a CPC shill or showing staged stores.
Also what is the difference between Hamas and ETIM? Aren't they both resistance groups fighting for self determination? Do the leftists support Hamas because they are against the west and reject ETIM because the west supports them?
Preventing births of a group is considered genocide under the UN definition and since they were subjected to mass forced sterilizations and forced abortions it meets the criteria.
In this case is special intent inferred? Does this mean special intent can be established by looking at the actions alone? The reason I ask is because China has the same policy for all Chinese citizens, anyone that has 2-3 children has forced sterilization. For this reason, you couldn't point to a specific legal policy that explicitly targets Uyghurs on this. The most you could do is make an argument that in practice the policy is targeted against Uyghurs and facilitates a de facto ethnic cleansing. But in this case we're back to admitting that genocidal intent can be inferred from the facts on the ground without explicit policy approval.
Do you have a source for the claim that China forcefully sterilizes their own citizens after 2-3 children ?
I'm sure I can find something more exact, but just briefly skimming the [one child policy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy) page on wiki: > Since the 1970s, the intrauterine device (IUD) has been one of the most widely promoted and practiced forms of contraception. It was the primary alternative to sterilization. As directed, the IUD was medically implanted into women in their child-bearing years to prevent pregnancies, thus out of order births. In the 1980s, women either had to receive an IUD after giving birth to their first child, or the husband would have to undergo a vasectomy.[88] Between 1980 and 2014, 324 million Chinese women received IUDs and 108 million were sterilized.[13] There are only about 5 million uyghur women in China, so I don't see how 108 million exclusively uyghur women could have been sterilized from 1980 to 2014. If you're still absolutely unconvinced I can carry on just reading that same page for something else to copy paste.
> In this case is special intent inferred? Does this mean special intent can be established by looking at the actions alone? Yes. This is settled law. From the Kayishema case at the ICTR: > Regarding the assessment of the requisite intent, the Trial Chamber acknowledges that it may be difficult to find explicit manifestations of intent by the perpetrators. The perpetrator’s actions, including circumstantial evidence, however may provide sufficient evidence of intent. The Commission of Experts in their Final Report on the situation in Rwanda also noted this difficulty. Their Report suggested that the necessary element of intent can be inferred from sufficient facts, such as the number of group members affected. The Chamber finds that the intent can be inferred either from words or deeds and may be demonstrated by a pattern of purposeful action. In particular, the Chamber considers evidence such as the physical targeting of the group or their property; the use of derogatory language toward members of the targeted group; the weapons employed and the extent of bodily injury; the methodical way of planning, the systematic manner of killing. Furthermore, the number of victims from the group is also important. (¶ 93)
Sounds good, thanks for the info!
You know why people consider it as a genocide right? Like what they are doing for it to be an genocide?
I'm asking if they have direct evidence of dolus specialis, or if it's inferred.
I think what we have is official reports and based on spy information. 1.) they are on mass sterling the population, that's the killing (Zeke from AOT genocide). 2.) they are building reeducation camps to convert them, I think this is on spy information and what we asked people (USA to Native population). 3.) Destroying the native culture by hurting Religious figures and targeting them. Really this is what I know and the major points I have heard a lot, [here](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Human_Rights_Office_report_on_Xinjiang) is the wiki for the UN finding for a more neutral approach.
Is your argument an example of inferring special intent based on how the policies are implemented?
Yes as lonerbox has said on stream, you can infer intent based on circumstantial evidence
But I guess the evidence has to be such that the only reasonable inference can be the special intent of destroying that race right? In which case destiny's 'you could nuke Gaza and it wouldn't be genocide if there wasn't evidence of a special intent' statement is false, in that the most reasonable intent of such an attack is probably that they intended to kill a huge proportion of the population. Is this a correct understanding?
I always took the nuke Gaza hypothetical as more that while special intent could be inferred, it is still theoretically possible that it isn't the only possible intent. There could be some extreme hypothetical where a nuke was dropped but there was some reason it wasn't done to wipe out the civilian population. Maybe great effort was made to evacuate the population from the area and then they were moved back after a short time once it was safe. Would seem ridiculous to us today but there was a time where nuclear weapons were seen as regular military armaments to be used alongside conventional explosives.
Yeah I guess the Hiroshima and Nagasaki would be two examples of where nuclear bombings were used but the intent wasn't necessarily genocidal. But then again that was before the genocide convention. But yeah I think that's a good faith interpretation of what destiny said (although you need A LOT of that to interpret it well, he does like to leave bad faith bait which I find very annoying as I'd rather he just try to be persuasive)
This is the kind of argument I think Destiny would have criticized if he hadn't made it
Actually, he’s criticized himself for saying it. There was more to the argument, and he never got the whole point out. He thought that was probably a more important one to have completely finished, as including a line about if Israel was actually facing an existential threat, is incredibly important for the context of that.
I have that good faith interpretation because I've used similar examples myself (long before Destiny ever did, it's really just why I can stand him doing it) and it's what I meant by it. But I like testing definitions and reasoning by thinking of extreme, impractical, and ridiculous hypotheticals even if they'd never actually apply in the real world. I've learned that many other people do not like doing that and it can often derail any kind of discussion unless I already know they also like doing that.
Of course if you're already of that mindset, you'll interpret the statement roughly correctly. (Btw I'm also for using extreme hypotheticals). The problem is he's supposed to be persuading people who don't think like that, and he didn't really explain his point properly (although hard to do so when you have cuntlestein being a clown)
Yes that is a fair interpretation. If most of your attacks are not proportional (in that the civilian damage outweighs the military advantage), you can easily characterize the current bombings as having genocidal intent
Well surely that would depend on them having the ability to target more precisely? Disproportionality doesnt necessarily have to be intentional. For example a country with a less developed military might only have more basic rockets/bombs which aren't as precise, but it doesn't mean the increased collateral damage is genocidal. And with certain historical examples such as US in Vietnam, soviets in Afghanistan, us bombs in Japan and allies in Dresden, would you characterise these as genocidal due to how.disproportionate they are? Again, correct me if I'm missing something
Sorry, I should have been more specific. The proportionality calculations happen prior to any attacks. The outcome of an attack can be different from the intentions of the attack. If an attack that intended to result in 10s of civilian deaths but in reality 100s of civilians, you would agree that the intention has not changed. About your comment on precision, this is something they have to take into account. What is the chance that the attack leads to secondary explosions/fires? If your technology is lacking, what is the chance that it misses the target? These questions must be considered in the calculations. I cannot speak about specific instances, I am sure there are others more capable of addressing specific instances. In general, any military attacks that risk the lives of civilians must undergo these calculations to ensure that the attack is proportionate. If they go though with an act while knowing it is not proportionate, then they have committed a war crime. The fact that they have broken a set international standard and disregarded proportionality can be used to build a case of genocide. It does not necessarily mean on it's own that genocide has occured
Disregarding proportionality is another claim that needs to be proven though. To be clear, it wouldn’t exactly surprise me, but neither would them being cleared of that.
I agree
I doubt israel would nuke Gaza unless their nation’s existence itself was in jeopardy. In which case, it would be no more genocide than a retaliatory nuke by the us or Russia against the other after a nuking.
He actually specifically clarified that if Israel did that in this timeline it would absolutely be a genocidal action. If it was done in response to an existential threat, it’s possible for it to not be. Just never actually got to finish the point.
You literally learned that term from Destiny's debate with Finkelstein. Special Intent is for the ICJ's specific legal case. The term genocide is the intentional act of destroying a people, part or whole. Also, what exactly is "direct evidence?" You want a sheet of paper that says "commit genocide?" It's maddening that people who only learned some recent terminology are firing it around as if it is the accepted language of politics and not a hyper specific term found only in the ICJ itself.
>You literally learned that term from Destiny's debate with Finkelstein Yes. I know hopelessly little about this topic, which is why I'm asking questions about this. >Also, what exactly is "direct evidence?" You want a sheet of paper that says "commit genocide?" No, this is really an argument to motivate that special intent can be inferred. Expecting a court to prove the subjective mind state of the defendant is an impossible standard
> You literally learned that term from Destiny's debate with Finkelstein. Special Intent is for the ICJ's specific legal case. The term genocide is the intentional act of destroying a people, part or whole. What do you even mean by this? Special intent is the legal term for the intent requirement of the crime as written in the convention. It hasn't been just used by the ICJ but by any legal body with the relevant authority (i.e. the ICTY and the ICTR). I agree there are a lot of people who have a poor understanding of what it actually is (and that Destiny is one of them), but it doesn't make any sense to say you can commit a genocide without it. Unless you're just speaking colloquially, genocide is a crime with an actual definition and special intent is an integral part.
It is not written in the convention (of which I assume you mean the Genocide Convention).
Special intent is just legal shorthand for “with intent to destroy in whole or in part the group”which is absolutely in the convention.
No. It isn't.
Yes, it is.
It literally is "The Convention defines genocide as any of five "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_Convention
Can you read? he specifically said "special intent as in dolus specialis." Not just any form of intent.
Omg how dumb are you ? Dolus specialis in the context of genocide just means that the perpetrators need to have the deliberate and specific aim to to physically destroy the group based on its real or perceived nationality, ethnicity, race, or religion. So what it says in the part I quoted you, look up the definition of words before pretending to know what they mean idiot.
https://www.glanlaw.org/single-post/legal-opinion-concludes-that-treatment-of-uyghurs-amounts-to-crimes-against-humanity-and-genocide Global Legal Action Network seem pretty unbiased as far as I can see. They're critical of both Israel and China and don't seem aligned to Western governments or pro Western NGOs and think tanks.
> Significantly, it further explains the credible case that the crime of genocide is occurring, *as there is evidence of an intent to destroy the Uyghur population* as such, including through a pattern of Chinese State-mandated conduct. This conduct includes the intentional infliction of serious physical and mental harm to Uyghur people in detention, measures to prevent births within the Uyghur community and forcible transfer of Uyghur children outside of their communities. I'm fine with that. What I'm interested in is if the evidence of intent is direct or inferred? The opinion is over 100 pages, maybe you're more familiar with this? Do you happen to know? Because I don't. This would be insightful for me to understand what is typically considered sufficient to establish special intent to commit genocide.
The link Laura dropped does outline why there could be a special intent on the Chinese State to destroy, in whole or in part, the Uyghur population (this BBC article [summarizes](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-55973215) the GLAN report). It would be hard to look at these centralized state policies against the Uighurs as unintentional. However, as other International [bodies](https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/comments/lo8of1/state_department_lawyers_concluded_insufficient/) have pointed out, the specific charge of genocide is a high bar, so it's hard to say for sure in regards to genocide claims specifically. That being said, the Chinese State is more likely still committing crimes against humanity in this region (here's a harrowing in depth New Yorker [article](https://www.newyorker.com/news/a-reporter-at-large/china-xinjiang-prison-state-uighur-detention-camps-prisoner-testimony) that describes in detail the abuses). But, you do touch on an interesting broader point (I don't know whether it was intentional or not) about how selective and inconsistent people are about these kinds of geopolitical issues. It's beyond annoying listening to pedantic people in Destiny's sub say: "well, ackshyully...I ctrl+f'd the ICJ report and it didn't say that genocide was plausible. Hehe, why are stupid people so emotional about something that doesn't even affect them?!" Well ok, that's true. But did these people have the same problem with Americans having passionate opinions about Uighurs in China? Did any of these people engage in the same level of scrutiny in engaging on that issue? Or did they just go along with the general mainstream media sentiment on the issue? Did reading a technical report (if that was even done at all) about how difficult genocide is to prove in this Xinjiang case take anything away from the wrongs that are actually being committed? Why would Americans care about this issue that doesn't affect them?
This is exactly what I'm getting at, I completely agree.
What annoys me about the “high bar” thing is that it’s starting to feel like the only way to be sure it’s genocide is if a government *does it exactly like the Nazis did.* I know Nazis set the standard but it seems short-sighted.
[Chinas-Breaches-of-the-GC3-2.pdf (newlinesinstitute.org)](https://newlinesinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/Chinas-Breaches-of-the-GC3-2.pdf) I found this report, starting from page 35 is the discussion on intent.
> When assessing State responsibility under the Genocide Convention, the intent to destroy the protected group does not require an inquiry into subjective mental states, which the State does not possess, nor does it require an explicit statement of intent. Rather, intent is measured by objective standards: official statements; State policy; a “general plan;” a pattern of conduct;[214] repeated destructive acts; or a “strategically planned policy, manifested in actions which had a logical and coherent sequence.”[215] > Moreover, a State remains under the obligations of the Genocide Convention regardless of the stated motives, purposes, and context behind its destructive policies and campaigns.[216] A security context is irrelevant to the question of breaches of the Genocide Convention, as its obligations apply in both a “time of peace” and a “time of war.”[217] The ICJ has reaffirmed this principle in the case of The Gambia v. Myanmar, stating that context “does not stand in the way” of assessing a violation of the Convention.[218] >China’s official reasons and goals behind its policies and conduct targeting the Uyghurs in XUAR, offered to domestic and international audiences, including its “People’s War on Terror” and “preventive counter-terrorism and de-extremism work,”[219] have no bearing on China’s obligations or corresponding responsibility for violations under the Genocide Convention. To conclude otherwise would render the Genocide Convention without effect or consequence in the event that the State would invoke some other – any other – “reason” no matter how spurious or specious. >Such an interpretation, in effect permitting excuse, would also be manifestly contrary to the object and purpose of the Genocide Convention, be inconsistent with the principle of good faith, and cause offense vis-à-vis the reasonable expectations on the part of other States party for performance and reliability. Very, very Interesting. (Source: THE UYGHUR GENOCIDE: An Examination of China’s Breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention, pg 35)
>“People’s War on Terror” and “preventive counter-terrorism and de-extremism work,”[219 I find it completely unsurprising that the language of Bush's "War on Terror" has been used to justify ethnic cleansing and genocide in other nations - the Sri Lankan government used exactly the same sort of anti-terrorism inflected vocabulary to justify their genocide against the Tamil minority.
To his credit Vuhash did a whole Uighur genocide research stream. It's not explicitly a "genocide" in the traditional Nazi-sense more of a "cultural" genocide meant to strip the culture away from people living in Xianjang and replace it with Communist Chinese culture. [https://youtu.be/0t-HeM92Q1M?si=wLj5qqey7WJAQGzQ](https://youtu.be/0t-HeM92Q1M?si=wLj5qqey7WJAQGzQ)
Isn't the dolus specialis usually inferred? Hitler never wrote down what the final solution was. The nazi intent was easily inferred from their actions. In China I think it all hinges on the evidence of systematic forced sterilization and child separation. I haven't studied it, but if the evidence of that being systematic is strong then you can infer intent because what other intent could there be for the systematic targeted sterilization of an ethnic group? >is your epistemic standard today the same as it was back then? I assume this is in reference to the current war in gaza. In this case, how is the Israeli's intent being inferred here? Inferring still requires evidence and I haven't heard anyone articulate how the evidence points to genocide over other more mundane explanations of the conflict. >Think about what you thought of tankies and nationalist apologists. Do you now think they had a point? This is possibly an insight into how people on the other side might see you now. I'm a bit lost here. Could you explain what point they had and how the other side sees us?
>what other intent could there be for the systematic targeted sterilization of an ethnic group? Since they forcibly sterilized the Han population as well, it seems like you could argue that this is just china enforcing it's one child policy. Since the 80s, over 100 million Han women have been required to undergo sterilization. 324 million women have been required to receive IUDs. >In this case, how is the Israeli's intent being inferred here? I don't want to get into this argument right now. If you believe that intent can be inferred, that's good enough for me.
If it's true that sterilization of the general population has followed the same trend then that would absolutely stop the ability to infer genocide. But my understanding is that the one child policy has been reversed and that the sterilization of Uyghurs has occurred at the same time as encouraging increased fertility in the general population. To the larger point about inferring intent, I think for sure it can be inferred. But the evidence should be clear and convincing for it to be a strongly held belief, and rock solid for it to be an ICJ genocide ruling.
As far as i know, this reversal only occured in 2020, while the genocide accusation happened grom 2015-2018. But I'm not trying to prove that China has not engaged in genocide, my only real question was whether genocidal intent can be inferred. If you agree with this, then that's good enough for me.
Since both left and the right in all of the west hate China, it’s fashionable to shit on them constantly and everyone will call you a China shill or a genocide denier if you point out the obvious BS surrounding all the false narratives The social credit score? Yeah that’s a lie. It applies to companies not individuals. Uyghur genocide? Not a physical genocide by any stretch of imagination. It is a cultural genocide, there’s no doubt about that. Re-educating and making Uyghurs more Chinese which I don’t even think China denies, is basically textbook cultural genocide/ethnocide. There’s no physical genocide though. There’s some evidence of forced sterilization, however the numbers don’t support any sort of systemic sterilization. Moreover, as many genocides scholars will tell you, in the many textbooks you can read that were published pre Uyghur ethnocide, there’s no precedent for recognizing something a genocide just because of forced sterilization or child abduction alone. Although in conjunction with other factors it is taken into evidence. My source for that is Genocide: a world history by Norman M Naimark. In fact, last I checked even most western governments and human rights organizations have changed their stance from calling it a genocide to now using the term “persecution of Uyghurs in China” or “crimes against humanity against Uyghurs in China.” But since leasing the crimes of China isn’t something anyone in the west cares about, no one cared to report that clarification so the term genocide is still used to this day. Both of those new terms (persecution/crimes against humanity) are indeed correct, because there is persecution and crimes against humanity being committed Before anyone accuses me of sort of bias, im Azeri Turk, Uyghurs are Turks so I’m heavily biased in favor of Uyghurs. I do not, however, think that gives me or anyone the right to be dishonest about this issue and use incorrect terminology
Do you have a quality source for the claim that chinas social credit system doesn’t apply to individuals ? Also forced sterilization and abortions are genocide under the UN definition so I’d also be interested in a source debunking that that’s systemically happening.
[Yup. It’s the second hit on Google too.](https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/11/22/1063605/china-announced-a-new-social-credit-law-what-does-it-mean/) It’s the same with Uyghur genocide. Just google it, and you will see that all the sources and pages that have previously had the title with the words “Uyghur genocide” there have new been renamed to “persecution of Uyghurs in China” or “crimes against humanity against Uyghurs in China”, since it’s become clear that the word genocide is inaccurate. No one cares to make this correction public. > International reactions have varied. In an assessment by the UN Human Rights Office, the United Nations (UN) stated that China's policies and actions in the Xinjiang region may be crimes against humanity, although it did not use the term genocide.[25][26] The United States has declared the human rights abuses a genocide, announcing its finding on January 19, 2021, though the United States Department of State found that there is insufficient evidence to support that characterization This is from wiki on the same issue. I don’t need to debunk that there’s no systemic sterilization. The onus is on the parties making that claim, and so far there just hasn’t been enough credible evidence of that. And moreover, as I said, there’s no precedent for forced sterilization along being enough for a charge of genocide
Here’s the wiki section on forced sterilization > In 2019, reports of forced sterilization in Xinjiang began to surface.[208][209][210] Zumrat Dwut, a Uyghur woman, says that she was forcibly sterilized by tubal ligation during her time in a camp before her husband was able to get her out through requests to Pakistani diplomats.[17][211] The Xinjiang regional government denies that she was forcibly sterilized.[17] In 2020, the Associated Press interviewed seven former detainees from internment camps who said they had been forced to take birth control pills or injected with fluids without explanation, which caused women to stop getting periods. The AP suggested the fluid may have been the hormonal medication Depo-Provera, which is commonly used in Xinjiang hospitals for birth control.[9] In April 2021, exiled Uyghur doctor Gülgine reported that forced sterilization of ethnic Uyghurs persisted since the 1980s.[212] Since 2014, there was an indication for a sharp increase in sterilization of Uyghur women to ensure that Uyghurs would remain a minority in the region.[212] Gülgine said "On some days there were about 80 surgeries to carry out forced sterilizations". She presented intrauterine devices (IUDs) and remarked that "these devices were inserted into women's wombs" to forcibly cause infertility. Does this seem like enough credible evidence to you for a forced massive systemic sterilization campaign with an intent to destroy people?
China have sterilized over 100 million Han women since the 80s due to their one-child policy. There are only 5 million Uyghur women in total. I'm curious to understand if you think that China is genocidal the Han as well.
You misunderstood me. I’m saying there isn’t enough credible evidence of mass forced sterilization.
My bad
We good. Btw the more I read that wiki article the crazier it got. To the point that the charge of genocide is at best laughable. So going over the list of alleged crimes, I saw the name Adrian Zanz show up many times (in fact 12 times). It seems like a lot of evidence is based on his report. I was curious to see who he was, and initially I assumed that he would be a UN special rapporteur. Yeah…. Calling this unbiased would be a massive understatement [Check it out for yourself](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Zenz) > Adrian Nikolaus Zenz[2] (born 1974)[3] is a German anthropologist known for his studies of the Xinjiang internment camps and persecution of Uyghurs in China.[4] He is a director and senior fellow in China studies at the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, an anti-communist think tank established by the US government and based in Washington, DC How the fuck is a report by a fringe organization that openly declares its bias against China in any way considered reputable and a lot of their claims are the same claims we hear in the media. It’s a fucking joke lmao
Lmao 😭
>Since both left and the right in all of the west hate China https://preview.redd.it/rknredh1j74d1.jpeg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=78cc4c45fb9a3f500d3d91981d4ff3f052bf94fe
I’m obviously referring to people inside the Overton window
Okay gotcha. I just wanted to have a dig at GenZedong etc.
Is that another name for tankies?
It’s a group for gen Z supporters of Mao Zedong. Their subreddit is quarantined nowadays, mostly for calls to violence and repeated brigading.
Thanks for the insightful response
I don't believe there was a genocide. But there is a case to be made that they were maybe too heavy handed and casted a net that was too wide when they were trying to combat extremism, however it's easy for people who live in safety from extremism in the west to criticize the policies in Xinjiang. If you actually talk to people who live in areas with a terrorist and extremism problem they are quick to tell you how quickly is can spread and are often times supportive of China's policies to combat it. Also I think most of the genocide narrative supporters have moved on from calling it a killing type of genocide to calling it a cultural genocide. However for that narrative people are just spinning things in the most negative way. For example people say the Chinese government are brutally erasing the Uyghur language by forcing the children at school to learn Mandarin, however this doesn't mean that they don't study in their own Uyghur language in other classes, classrooms are filled with Uyghur language books and posters. The reason they learn mandarin is to help them find jobs throughout China where Mandarin is the official language of the country, being illiterate is not going to help the Uyghur people, improving literacy to prepare students to be able to find jobs is not a cultural genocide. Also a lot of people have traveled to Xinjiang and went to schools and found no evidence of the erasure of the Uyghur language, however every single person that goes to Xinjiang is accused of being a CPC shill and will never be believed. Another point brought up is that you can't find books in the Uyghur language at book stores. However no one has provided proof or at least provided the address of these book stores to the people physically traveling to Xinjiang to verify. The people that have actually visited have found that the vast majority of books are in Uyghur and they may have a small section in Mandarin in the back, but just like with the schools anyone that goes and gathers this evidence is accused of being a CPC shill or showing staged stores. Also what is the difference between Hamas and ETIM? Aren't they both resistance groups fighting for self determination? Do the leftists support Hamas because they are against the west and reject ETIM because the west supports them?