>You refuse to condemn this, and you've provided justification for why they are necessary. My original interpretation of your comment that was therefore correct with that caveat that you take issue with the term "concentration camp".
First of all, why is my personal condemnation so important to you? I will not be coerced into making statements for the satisfaction of others, as I think it’s a disingenuous form of argument. It would be like me asking you to condemn the ethnic cleansing of Han Chinese by Uighers during the Urumqi riots -why should I need that condemnation from you and why should you need to vindicate yourself for me? I have already stated that I will always condemn the detainment of innocents. There should be enough information there for you to extrapolate what I do and do not condemn.
Secondly, in all of my comments, I have never denied that the Chinese government is operating ideological re-education camps. I have disputed accusations that they are primarily operate as ethnic concentration camps. I have also disputed the purpose, the scale, and the characterization of the camps. There is zero evidence that they “happen to contain almost exclusively Uighur people”, though I personally believe that many of them are, given the nature of the terrorist incidents in the region.
> My original interpretation of your comment that was therefore correct with that caveat that you take issue with the term "concentration camp".
This is your original interpretation of my comment:
>The strongest possible interpretation of "You can't judge China by the same standards as modern, highly educated western democracies" is that it's wrong to judge China for locking up more than a million people of a specific ethnicity in concentration camps.
Your original interpretation of my comment is still completely incorrect because I have never made the statement “it's wrong to judge China for locking up more than a million people of a specific ethnicity in concentration camps”. You keep trying to make it seem as though I’ve said this, but you can’t, because I didn’t.
>When there are systemic injustices it is appropriate to condemn the system.
Where is your proof that there are systematic injustices? Provide proof that three million Uigher Muslims have been put into concentration camps because of their ethnicity as an official policy of the CCP. Provide proof that they are being tortured and forced into hard labour as an official policy of the CCP. We’re not talking about the kind of proof that arises from “journalists” who have never set foot in the region. We’re not talking about the kind of proof that arises from satellite images either (not sure if you still remember all the satellite images of Saddam’s WMD facilities). If you believe that putting several thousand people into “re-education” camps against their will because of possible extremist ideology is an injustice, then you are free to condemn that if you wish.
> The vast majority of racial injustice in the US isn't a matter of official policy either, yet it's absurd that you would refuse to condemn the Justice system for the end result.
Why on earth would that be absurd? This argument makes no sense to me. If the US justice system worked 100% correctly the way it was intended to work, there would not be any racial injustices, correct? So why would it make sense to blame the US justice system for abuses that arose organically, despite what is written in law?
Arresting someone because of their skin colour is illegal according to US law. By your logic, the fact that individual police officers choose to racially profile people anyway should be blamed on the law? That’s simply not logical. Why would it be absurd to refuse to condemn the justice system for abuses arising from individual police officers’ racial prejudices, when the justice system specifically makes this type of discrimination illegal? Interested in reading your explanation.
> Many non media groups have made similar allegations including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, The Government of Turkey, and The US State Department. This isn't a media conspiracy theory. Amnesty international interviewed over a hundred people who claim that their relatives are missing. They interviewed people who claimed to have been tortured in the camps. To me, that alone is enough evidence for the world to demand answers.
If a 100 interviews from people with missing relatives is enough to convince you that three million Uighers are being systematically detained and tortured because of their ethnicity, then your standard for what constitutes evidence is much lower than mine. Without adequate proof, these allegations are no different and no better than a politically motivated conspiracy theory. It's enough evidence for the world to demand answers but it's not enough evidence for the wholesale indictment that's going on right now.