World News

Ok, but which ones.

(Go ahead, comb your sources to find the ones that are 1. In a position to actually know what they're talking about with authority, like the IAGS, and 2. Not also calling out China for its policies in Xinjiang.)

Whoops, sorry, based on the standard you set below, I'm afraid I have to conclude that you're actually stanning the shit out of Marjorie Taylor Greene. After all, a bad actor not discussed here says that Israel is perpetrating a genocide of Palestinians much as Adrian Zenz says China is perpetrating a cultural genocide of the Uyghurs, and therefore I'm going to have to attribute your opposition to the obvious, well-documented, ongoing genocide in Palestine to an antisemitic belief in Jewish space lasers.

Wow, arguing in bad faith totally unconstrained by logic is so much fun; I see why you like it now.

(Edit: And in this case, I'm citing what's effectively an actual neo-Nazi compared to just a member of a right-wing think tank with a wildly out-of-context screenshot. Even when I'm trying to be bad-faith as a joke, I somehow can't measure up to your work.)

is whataboutism if I’ve ever seen it.

I was remarking on the credibility of your source; you were remarking on the credibility of someone never cited here. You decided to use the source in the first place and then defend it when called out; I immediately disavowed the one you tried to push on me.

Brophy goes over your exact type of asinine rhetoric that seeks to ascribe this only to right-wing think tanks.

Liberal human rights organizations have often been too quick to make common cause with China hawks. The Left should have no truck with any of this.

But equally, the Left should not allow criticism of genocide claims to smuggle in an attitude of indifference to the human suffering that those claims point to—precisely what Prashad and Chak are trying to do. In their hands, talk of genocide is reduced to the work of a handful of individuals affiliated with right-wing think tanks, a move that allows them to focus on cultivating a sense that the entire Xinjiang issue is a construct of funding sources and self-interest. This will pass for “materialism” in some circles, but it is the sort of analysis that Gramsci had in mind when he complained of the reduction of Marxism to “economic superstition.” In such thinking, “‘Critical’ activity is reduced to the exposure of swindles, to creating scandals, and to prying into the pockets of public figures.”

Sadly, far too much of today’s China debate has this feel to it. Prashad and his co-thinkers are often enough on the receiving end themselves of critiques focusing on funding sources. It is a pity that instead of elevating the discussion above this level, they choose to descend to it.

Thats a lot of Muslim countries listed, and you cherry picked a few out of them.

I cherry-picked them? Those were four of the seven countries AI slop authors Prashad and Chak named, and I noted them because they're obviously corrupt and abusive and the authors definitely know this; the fact that the authors decided to list even one of the four I listed as if it's compelling is absurd.

I just as easily could've included Egypt (under the extremely corrupt and abusive el-Sisi "presidency" since 2014) and Nigeria (roughly Muslim–Christian split and notable for extreme corruption), but I decided to list the most obviously egregious majority of them from the list the authors provided as evidence. You can view the full list of representatives here.

Yes, I fully believe Muslim-majority countires would defend the cultural genocide of a Muslim ethnic group toward political ends; what kind of question is this? Again, read the Tempest article by David Brophy and try to discuss it here; he uses his experience as a socialist and a historian to break down the half-hallucinated lies by Prashad and Chak.