184
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Dec 2025
184 points (100.0% liked)
Not The Onion
18905 readers
2084 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Archive link.
This apparently isn't even the "real" Panchen Lama, but is the one chosen by China to replace the one that was kidnapped and was chosen by the Dalai Lama.
Sort of the joke of religious doctrine. These people aren't actually reincarnated Buddhist Wizards who can magically divine the destiny of their successors.
This Panchen Lama is as much "real" as the current Dalai Lama is "real".
These are humans, they can be educated and influenced as easily as anyone, and their politics/religion is a consequence of their upbringing rather than some magical pre-birth spiritual intuition. And they can also grow up, realize their position in the world, and regret their decisions in hindsight.
I don't follow religious doctrine either, but as long as the adherents aren't acting in ways that are harmful to others, I personally try not to insult or belittle them or their beliefs.
The information regarding the CIA is interesting though. The fact that the US reneged on their promises and only used Tibet to extract information about China is depressing, but not surprising.
Magical thinking, in and of itself, is harmful to all of society.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohingya_genocide
Genocide is never justified.
It's also wrong to act like the actions of Myanmar or any perpetrator of genocide are representative of a religious monolith. Do you think it would be beneficial to insult and vilify Buddhists, and normalize that behavior because of the actions of Myanmar?
Insulting and vilifying adherents of a religion, and treating them like a monolith are exactly what leads to religious persecution, and in some cases genocide.
On a more basic level, it's just needlessly hostile. Life is difficult enough on its own, why spend time and energy insulting others based on something that overwhelmingly does not affect you or your community?
The Buddhist successors to the Mongolian/Qing Dynasty were plenty harmful to others. That's what sparked the student revolts responsible for their leadership's removal.
You can blame the icky yicky communists for polarizing and galvanizing upwardly mobile tibetan youth into an insurgency. But falling back on CIA agitprop to justify what was effectively a US military operation intended to destabilize a border region isn't proof of your humanitarianism. Even the Dalai Lama himself regrets letting the CIA militarize Tibet.
It's the story of the Cold War told over and over again. The goal of these operations is to spark civil war, not to liberate or liberalize any population.
It's my understanding that those harms were political and not religious in nature.
Why the disparaging adjectives? I feel like I'm missing the point.
I don't think there is any justification. It was selfish and self serving from the beginning. If the CIA had followed through on their promises, that would be a different story. But they clearly never intended to do so.
Amen.
Look no matter how you feel about the China and i dislike their government as well the "kidnapped" person was according to them relocated and allowed to live a regular life and there is something to be said to not allow a six year old to be forced to a religious figure forced to abide by among other things vows of celibacy.
Forcibly relocating a child away from their parents is the literal definition of kidnapping. Whether or not he ended up having a good life afterwards does not change that fact.
His parents were relocated with him.
Thank you for the clarification, I see that now. What I also see from further research is that he and his family were taken by force and have not been seen publicly since. Whether or not that would be technically considered kidnapping or abduction feels like splitting hairs.
I never said it wasn't kidnapping or wasn't wrong i just think there is nuance if he is really living as an ordinary citizen because i don't support forcing a six year old to become a religious figure, disallowed friends or any semblance of a normal childhood and forced to take lifelong vows of poverty and chastity which is what the Pachen Lama would do even if they gain political and religious power by doing so despite supporting religious freedom i don't think allowing that is part of it when it involves a child.
Both sides are allowed to suck, here. I get what you're saying- everyone seems to have made decisions without allowing the child, who would be incapable of making such life altering decisions, to have any kind of agency. Being concerned for his welfare is empathetic.
The other posters are concerned that the CCP has a terrible human rights record, and are notorious for being untruthful. Out of the frying pan, into the fire.
There is no proof of life except word from xinnie the poo that the child is alive, they refuse to allow any external orgs to verify if it is true.
Sure, that's a reasonable opinion, but that also clearly wasn't the purpose behind his abduction. Without any evidence, it's impossible to say whether or not he is actually living, as an ordinary citizen or otherwise. I'm not trying to say that there isn't any nuance in the situation, but without knowing with certainty his ultimate fate and also living in his shoes, it's impossible to say which path would be preferable.
In your first reply, you put kidnapping in quotes and made it sound exclusively beneficial. Then in your follow up, you undercut my definition of kidnapping (and to be clear, you were technically correct). I interpreted all of that as a refutation of the idea that he was kidnapped. I apologize if I misunderstood at any point.