What I’m aware of is that there is no credible evidence of any sort of genocide happening in Xinjiang.
Why is it always the same rhetorical methods you (are you ML?) people use?
Telling someone they are wrong, and they just need to read a bit more into it. Then they read a bit more into it, from the source you linked and notice that your entire argument is nothing but manipulative but they anyway use the arguments from the very source you linked as a means to show you how pointless your comment was...and then, like nearly always, people like you will then argue: no, no, all false: read this very long thread.
I did read some threads on that subject from some MLs already. They all had one thing in common:
forced labor is actually something good in this case. But look this is an ideological debate. You think it's good, I think it's bad. There's no point debating that I should change my value system.
Why is it always the same rhetorical methods you (are you ML?) people use?
Telling someone they are wrong, and they just need to read a bit more into it. Then they read a bit more into it, from the source you linked and notice that your entire argument is nothing but manipulative but they anyway use the arguments from the very source you linked as a means to show you how pointless your comment was...and then, like nearly always, people like you will then argue: no, no, all false: read this very long thread.
I did read some threads on that subject from some MLs already. They all had one thing in common:
forced labor is actually something good in this case. But look this is an ideological debate. You think it's good, I think it's bad. There's no point debating that I should change my value system.