Abuses and genocide are 2 very different things. If you want to talk about the abuses during the ETIM crackdown and what was done wrong etc that’s definitely possible but you should really stop spreading the genocide narrative that smears mud on this real serious conversation.

Linking British propaganda outlets like the BBC, who were caught putting a yellow filter over their vidows in Xinjiang and lying about what people were saying, ie mistranslating, isn’t the win you think it is. I asked why you love Adrian Zenz, not for you to keep posting him.

Dialectical materialism. I look at material reality, analyze it within context and as it changes over time, where it came from and where it’s headed. I am certainly confident in my research, as I’ve done extensive reading on the subject. Your rejection of facts is what points at dogmatism.

I am done arguing across the thread so I am just going to deal with all your bullshit in one go here.

You keep repeating the word “authoritarian” as if it is a self-evident argument, but it is not. It is a vague political insult that Western political discourse applies to states it dislikes and almost never applies to itself. Every state exercises authority: it enforces laws, maintains internal security, regulates media to some extent, surveils threats, and suppresses movements it considers destabilizing. The United States conducts mass digital surveillance, criminalizes whistleblowers, historically infiltrated and destroyed political movements through programs like COINTELPRO, and imprisons more people than any country in the world. Yet it is rarely labeled “authoritarian” by the same commentators who apply the term to China reflexively. That should already tell you the term is being used ideologically rather than analytically. If every state exercises authority, then calling one “authoritarian” without specifying material structures of power, governance mechanisms, or outcomes is just moralizing rhetoric.

The same applies to your claim that China is “fascist,” which is not merely wrong but demonstrates that you do not understand what fascism actually is. Fascism historically emerges in advanced capitalist societies during severe economic crisis when sections of the ruling class mobilize a violent ultra-nationalist movement to crush organized labor and socialist movements in order to preserve capitalist property relations. It is defined by the fusion of corporate and state power, preservation of monopoly capital, destruction of socialist parties and unions, and expansionist militarism. China does not fit this model in any meaningful way. Its political system is led by a communist party whose legitimacy rests on long-term development planning, massive poverty reduction, public infrastructure investment, and a large state-owned economic sector. Private capital exists, but it does not politically dominate the state the way corporate capital dominates Western liberal democracies. You may dislike that system, but lazily labeling it “fascist” simply shows that you are throwing around historical terminology you clearly have not studied.

Your argument about Xinjiang relies on the same pattern: confident assertions built almost entirely on a narrow ecosystem of ideological sources. The modern “Uyghur genocide” narrative traces heavily back to Adrian Zenz, a far-right evangelical researcher who openly states his religious mission is to destroy communism. His methodology (guesswork extrapolated from administrative statistics and speculation about buildings seen in satellite images) has been widely criticized by scholars across multiple fields. Meanwhile, international delegations, journalists, and diplomats have visited Xinjiang repeatedly over the past several years. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation publicly acknowledged China’s efforts in addressing extremism and safeguarding Muslim citizens rather than declaring a genocide. Dozens of Muslim-majority governments have taken similar positions. If a genocide were genuinely occurring, it would be extraordinary for the major international organization representing Muslim states to refuse to recognize it.

Satellite imagery itself proves almost nothing. Images of buildings do not magically become “concentration camps” simply because a Western think tank says so. Every country has prisons, schools, training centers, and administrative facilities. Converting “there are buildings” into “therefore genocide” requires layers of speculation that are rarely demonstrated. The testimonies most widely promoted in Western media frequently come from individuals affiliated with political organizations advocating regime change, such as the World Uyghur Congress. Some prominent figures cited as witnesses have direct institutional connections to U.S. security agencies. That does not automatically invalidate testimony, but it absolutely means the claims require scrutiny rather than blind acceptance because they align with Western geopolitical narratives.

You also dismiss Chinese public opinion entirely because it comes from Chinese institutions. That is not analysis; it is simply prejudice dressed up as skepticism. Multiple long-term studies, including research conducted by Harvard’s Ash Center, have consistently found extremely high satisfaction with the Chinese central government across decades of rapid development. Hundreds of millions of people have experienced massive improvements in living standards, infrastructure, healthcare access, and poverty reduction. China eliminated extreme poverty on a scale unprecedented in human history. These material outcomes are a major reason the government maintains broad legitimacy domestically. Pretending that 1.4 billion people must all be brainwashed or terrified because their views contradict Western narratives says more about your worldview than about China.

Your claims about censorship suffer from the same lack of nuance. China regulates its information space, particularly around political organization and extremist ideology. That is true. But the idea that Chinese society exists in total informational darkness is nonsense. Hundreds of millions of people use Chinese social media platforms every day where public debates, criticism of local officials, policy complaints, and social controversies are common. Domestic media frequently exposes corruption and administrative failures. The system is designed to prevent destabilizing political mobilization and separatist extremism while still allowing broad social discussion. Again, you can disagree with that model, but describing it as total censorship shows you are repeating talking points rather than observing how the system actually operates.

Your repeated insistence that your position cannot possibly contain racist assumptions also misses the point. Criticism of any state is legitimate. What becomes chauvinistic is the underlying assumption that Chinese people are incapable of forming genuine political opinions and must therefore be either brainwashed or coerced if they express support for their own government. That assumption appears constantly in Western commentary about China. When someone dismisses the perspectives of an entire population while elevating a handful of exile activists as the only “real voices,” it reflects a colonial pattern of thinking whether you want to admit it or not.

More broadly, your arguments show a familiar pattern: start with a predetermined conclusion that China must be oppressive, then accept any claim that supports that belief while dismissing contradictory evidence as propaganda. That is not critical thinking; it is ideological confirmation bias. Real analysis requires examining sources, incentives, and historical context rather than repeating whatever narrative is most popular in Western media cycles.

So the issue here is not that criticism of China is forbidden. The issue is that the criticisms you are presenting rely on vague labels, historically illiterate misuse of terms like “fascism,” contested evidence promoted by politically motivated actors, and a reflexive dismissal of the perspectives of the Chinese population itself. That is not a serious argument. It is a collection of slogans and assumptions repeated with confidence but very little understanding.