I'm the same, which is why it seems so hypocritical to shame Chamath Palihapitiya for behaving exactly the same way as the vast majority of people - but actually being honest about it.
Uyghur abuse - "We" don't care
- Thread starter The Don
- Start date
I'm the same, which is why it seems so hypocritical to shame Chamath Palihapitiya for behaving exactly the same way as the vast majority of people - but actually being honest about it.
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
The outrage is that he announced it. I don't care about my uncle but I'm not going to announce that fact at his funeral. No matter how many others there agree.
Chanakya
,
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2015
- Messages
- 5,825
What Palihapitiya's words do is, in effect, to make this sort of indifference an acceptable position to take, rather than something one is ashamed about. That makes a difference, and in a negative sense. Therefore, I think it is good that people are discouraged from making that kind of a negative difference to the status quo.
Sure, simply feeling bad about genocide in some far land deep within our heart while not doing much about it doesn't help with the genocide or the oppression. But if at all one moves public opinion from that kind of limbo, surely it makes sense to move it to a position where people do start doing something about it, rather than to a position where people are fully comfortable doing nothing about it and announcing loudly that they care nothing about what happens to those folks there?
Of course, this sort of thing, the 'canceling' of Palihapitiya I mean, rarely happens as some clearly-thought-out policy. It is something that, generally, simply happens, for better or for worse. But if at all one were to work out the general reaction deliberately, then I for one am all for shaming people who in effect and with their casual words make this kind of indifference an acceptable and accepted position to assume.
I know, my personal feelings about the Uyghurs doesn't mean squat to them, unless it is followed up with concrete action. But still, I'd much rather view this issue, and have it viewed by others, as something one ought to be doing something around and that one is, if only vaguely, ashamed not to be doing something/more about, than move it to the position of something one is comfortable not giving a damn about. That way there is better chance of something getting done one of these days.
Although yes, that's a great deal less than it might have been and should have been, and infinitely less than what is actually needed in order to make a difference, but no, this kind of thinking is most certainly not "hypocrisy".
Chanakya
,
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2015
- Messages
- 5,825
This. Especially when the fact is that no one gives a damn about said uncle not because said uncle was a douchebag, but because everyone present is too douchebaggy to give a damn about anything other than themselves.
You seem very engaged about this. What steps are you personally taking to improve the lot of the Uyghurs ?
Chanakya
,
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2015
- Messages
- 5,825
I've made my position clear, surely?
This isn't about me, at all.
I mean, what about you? If we must get personal about this, why not start with you? You're the one who's apparently "engaged" enough to have started this thread. So what are you doing for the Uyghurs?
Conversely, if you don't care about the Uyghurs, and for some reason have a heart that bleeds for Palihapitiya instead, then what are you doing for Palihapitiya? Or are you a hypocrite not just about the Uyghurs but about Palihapitiya as well?
Let's not make this personal, okay? I'm engaged enough to think about this and comment about this, just as you are. My disagreeing with you does not oblige me to do any more in concrete terms that your presenting your own POV obliges you to do anything personally about this.
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
You don't see a neutral ground between "I am doing something" and "I am announcing that I don't give a damn"? Here's the scale of possible activity I see:
1. Work for X
2. Speak in favor of X, but take no other action
3. Do and say nothing about X
4. Speak against X, but take no other action
5. Work against X
By my reckoning, most of the planet is doing 3. Those who aren't Chinese and who are familiar with what's happening may fall into 2. A tiny portion are under 1. Fans of Chinese policy are doing 4, and China itself is doing 5. This guy from the OP is doing something between 3 and 4, by publicly announcing he doesn't care/X doesn't matter. That's over the neutrality line and into hostility against X. From your own posts it looks like you merge 2 and 3 together, and disdain them both because they are not 1. This is not the majority perception, which is why people are objecting to your suggestions.
I'm finding it very difficult to get motivated to help out the Uyghurs for many reasons, but which boil down to the following:
- I'm afraid that the fire that burned when I was in my teens and 20s and which motivated me to spend a lot of my time working on political causes has dwindled. Primarily because the closer I got to the "wheels of power" so to speak, the more formal the process became until the passion simply went out of it.
- The little time I do have I spend lobbying against Brexit (which has a far more direct impact on me and the ones I care about than whatever happens to the Uyghurs), working on local schemes to improve access to broadband internet an a couple of local charities
- The Uyghurs are a long way away and in a country which doesn't listen to governments let alone individuals. Any action I take will likely be futile not least because the current UK government needs a trade deal with China and so won't do anything to rock the boat. We may have a different government in a couple of years time but I would much rather that they focus their efforts on mitigating the effects of the last 10+ years of Conservative governments and trying to repair relationships with the EU than picking a fight with China over a minority group that literally no other country in the world seems to give a damn about
Edited to add.....
My engagement was quite the opposite, I thought that it was strange that someone was being called out and forced to apologise for making a statement which seemed to align with the vast majority of people in the West - they don't give a damn about the plight of the Uyghurs.
Last edited:
This is not true. Many Islamic groups are campaigning for Uyghurs.
https://uscmo.org/2020/12/18/150-mu...upport-for-chinas-genocide-of-uyghur-muslims/
Unfortunately for those who run mostly poor and aid dependent 'Islamic' nations they are stuck between two super powers both with anti-Islamist agendas. At least China keeps its oppression of Islam to its own country, how many Islamic nations has China invaded or embargoed? It is not as if the US has not kidnapped, tortured and imprisoned without trial Islamists.
My probably-poorly thought out theory is that we pay lip service to the fate of the Uighurs becuase we actually haven't seen much good evidence of the alleged mistreatment of millions but don't want to start any arguments.
I secretly think that for such a supposed mass genocide, there isn't much proof.
But say that, and you get abused and expected to provide evidence of absence of evidence.
Nobody wants to get into those arguments. I certainly don't. Glad we can speak freely here.
I secretly think that for such a supposed mass genocide, there isn't much proof.
But say that, and you get abused and expected to provide evidence of absence of evidence.
Nobody wants to get into those arguments. I certainly don't. Glad we can speak freely here.
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
Here come Xi's little helpers....
I wonder if genocide is the correct term? China is carrying out cultural imperialism and enforcing the Han culture on the Uighers. Suppressing their language, traditions and religion; but not actually killing them. Is their a term that means culturicide? Destroying a culture?
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
The term you're looking for is probably "ethnic cleansing".
Maybe, but I thought that was moving large numbers of people in or out of an area.
This seems more like what imperial powers try to do, keep the people in place but erase their culture.
BobTheCoward
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2010
- Messages
- 22,789
I think the term for that is genocide.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
I mean if you're looking to find the perfect term before discussing the actual issue, we'll be here all day avoiding the topic. Maybe there should be a separate thread for that game?
BobTheCoward
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2010
- Messages
- 22,789
That didn't stop Al queda or ISIS
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
I think it's one of those things where even if you do want to care about it, it's hard to actually do anything about it on a practical level. It's not very easy to boycott Chinese-made goods entirely. And even if you do, are you really helping Uyghurs that way?
It used to be popular to be concerned about Tibet. Presumably that's still an issue, but people don't talk about it as much anymore. In the long run China wins and people grudgingly accept it as just the reality and move on.
It used to be popular to be concerned about Tibet. Presumably that's still an issue, but people don't talk about it as much anymore. In the long run China wins and people grudgingly accept it as just the reality and move on.
I am not sure China's policy was intended to stop Al Qaeda or ISIS. Cynically the US seemed to promote Islamicist groups. The US destabilised and led to the overthrow of the secular Afghan government, which led to the Taliban government. The US overthrew the secular Iraqi government (for no good reason other than they were a muslim country) and destabilised the secular Syrian government directly leading to ISIS. The US was only saved by the intervention of Iranian Shia militias who defeated ISIS (before the US assasinated the general who defeated ISIS).
The US policy seems entirely driven by irrational anti-Islamic prejudice. The secular government of Syria and Iraq were less of a global threat than the chaos that has ensued following US intervention.
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 36,449
Douglas Adams, as always, had the answer.
Somebody Else's Problem
Millions of kids live in extreme poverty, millions of other kids are in the middle of civil wars, and nobody gives a damn.
Somebody Else's Problem
Millions of kids live in extreme poverty, millions of other kids are in the middle of civil wars, and nobody gives a damn.