“it can’t be a genocide because the population is increasing” is imo a weak argument because genocide doesn’t require killing and I think the argument from no refugees is orders of magnitude stronger
the argument from no refugees is orders of magnitude stronger
100%, I’m pretty sure it’s actually literally impossible to have a genocide with no refugees.
What is the no refugees point? Just that there aren’t any Muslims fleeing China? Tia
Genocides usually cause refugee crises, and there hasn’t been one from Xinjiang. What do you mean by “Tia”?
On this note, people argue that there are many Muslim countries that have the diplomatic position that there is not issue with PRC treatment of Uyghur people. I think that this is a reasonable argument against “genocide”, however I don’t see this as a strong argument that “there are no human rights abuses happening here, nothing to see at all”.
I agree that implying no mass death = no genocide is wrong, but it’s important to note that various sinophobic narratives around the treatment of Uyghurs (which I assume you’re referencing) are baiting in that direction already, pointing to birth rates and contraceptives as evidence of genocidal policies.
This post was a reply I accidentally made to the wrong comment, and several people seem to have upbeared it after I deleted it lmao.
deleted by creator is apparently a popular take.
