China Sends 1.1 Million Party Members to Share Uighurs' Homes

[guillaumeb]

Last edited Thu Jan 3, 2019, 01:48 PM - Edit history (1)

From the article:

The two women in the photograph were smiling, but Halmurat Idris knew something was terribly wrong.


One was his 39-year-old sister; standing at her side was an elderly woman Idris did not know. Their grins were tight-lipped, mirthless. Her sister had posted the picture on a social media account along with a caption punctuated by a smiley-face.

"Look, I have a Han Chinese mother now!" his sister wrote.


Idris knew instantly: The old woman was a spy, sent by the Chinese government to infiltrate his family.


There are many like her. According to the ruling Communist Party's official newspaper, as of the end of September, 1.1 million local government workers have been deployed to ethnic minorities' living rooms, dining areas and Muslim prayer spaces, not to mention at weddings, funerals and other occasions once considered intimate and private.

To read more:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-30/urgent-uninvited-guests-keep-watch-for-china-inside-uighur-homes


Shades of Big Brother.In this particular case of totalitarian oppression, the leaders of the totalitarian Chinese Government are atheists.


When I read various posts that try to explain that religion is the prime reason for war, or violence, or repression, or oppression, or any of a list of things, my reaction is to notice that all of thse things are done by totalitarians. Most of these totalitarians are theists, but that is because theists represent the majority of humans.

But when totalitarian non-theists are in charge, the exact same negative behaviors are present.

[Thomas Hurt]

1. Can you imagine having to host a trumpist in your home? (shiver)

[dameatball]

2. No. Not once dessert is over.

[guillaumeb]

3. Imagine if it were a family member.

But some do love with Trump supporters.

[Thomas Hurt]

13. Family is family, you deal with it,

having some strange Trumpist political officer forced on you is another thing entirely. Shades of being forced to house British soldiers in colonial America.

[Major Nikon]

4. So because bad behavior is possible without religion...

it’s impossible to blame religion for bad behavior.

[guillaumeb]

6. Missed.

Try again.

My observations are always about humans behaving badly. Humans. No qualifiers, or modifiers, simply humans.

[Major Nikon]

8. Bullshit. You made this about religion and posted it in the religion group

So now we are supposed to believe you aren’t talking about religion?

Looks more like another...

[guillaumeb]

9. Once again,

no comment about the actual article?

Understood.

Have fun with your "responses".

[Major Nikon]

10. So now I have to comment on the article itself and not the editorial comments in the OP?

Do you even listen to yourself?

[guillaumeb]

11. The article does deal with the terrible tactics employed by the Chinese Government.

But feel free to ignore it.

I understand.

[Major Nikon]

12. So now I'm ignoring it if I don't follow your marching orders?

Do you even listen to yourself?

[Lordquinton]

14. So why are you posting in the religion group?

If you're just posting about human behaviour then you're posting in the wrong group and it should be removed.

[Major Nikon]

71. So he can make half-fast cowardly accusations of intolerance evidently

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=302895

[trotsky]

18. And yet when humans behave decently, you never hesitate to give credit to religion.

Why the double standard?

[guillaumeb]

20. Not actually the case.

I post news about religion, and articles to give a more nuanced view of religion than some here do. And sometimes I post to show that what is condemned is human behavior that is not specific to theists.

[trotsky]

22. Actually the case.

When it's bad, it's never about religion. It's "human nature" or whatever.

But when it's good, it's because people were motivated by their faith.

No nuance whatsoever. Your worldview is quite black-and-white.

[Igel]

5. It really helps in China to be part of the majority.

Part is political. A lot is ethnic.

[guillaumeb]

7. My view is that the goal is political,

and a focus on eliminating any competition to the ruling class in China.

And rulers often use division based on ethnicity, race, class, language, religion, and other elements.

In the case of China, the ruling class is atheists, but generally the rulers of most other countries are theists. What matters is the intolerance.

[Lordquinton]

15. So you're saying this has nothing to do with religion?

Why are you inserting atheism into this whole thing if you're not talking about it?

Please consider deleting and posting in an appropriate place if you're not talking about religion.

[guillaumeb]

19. No, I am saying something different.

I said, in part,:

And rulers often use division based on ethnicity, race, class, language, religion, and other elements.

In the case of China, the ruling class is atheists, but generally the rulers of most other countries are theists. What matters is the intolerance.

[Major Nikon]

25. Do you think China should be more tolerant of the Turkistan Islamic Party?

[guillaumeb]

28. I think that the leaders of the Chinese Government should not be totalitarians.

But they are. And totalitarians, by their nature, want power to be reserved to them.


Most totalitarians have been theists, but those who have been atheists behave no differently than do their theistic counterparts.

[Major Nikon]

31. You didn't answer the question

[guillaumeb]

32. Start another post in GD.

I am following the example of MM.

[Major Nikon]

33. Meanwhile you still didn't answer the question

Which is just another example of how you want to give sermons rather than actually discuss your own OP.

[guillaumeb]

34. I did answer.

And the actual post is contained in the link. Feel free to discuss the actual post.

Or, divert to another area.

[Major Nikon]

35. I didn't ask you to repeat your argle-bargle

The question I asked is in post #25 and you haven't answered it. Seems immature to pretend otherwise. Also seems immature to pretend I'm not talking about your OP. If you don't want to answer the question, just say you don't want to answer the question. It's not as if anyone is going to be surprised by that behavior. Most people here already know you're all about giving sermons without any meaningful discussion.

[guillaumeb]

38. China Sends 1.1 Million Party Members to Share Uighurs' Homes

The issue.

[Major Nikon]

39. No shit

I understand the question as to why doesn’t fit your narrative and you’d rather give sermons than actually discuss your own OP.

[guillaumeb]

41. My ending remarks:

Shades of Big Brother. In this particular case of totalitarian oppression, the leaders of the totalitarian Chinese Government are atheists.


When I read various posts that try to explain that religion is the prime reason for war, or violence, or repression, or oppression, or any of a list of things, my reaction is to notice that all of these things are done by totalitarians. Most of these totalitarians are theists, but that is because theists represent the majority of humans.

But when totalitarian non-theists are in charge, the exact same negative behaviors are present.

So would you prefer to discuss oppression? And the need of some to oppress?


My view is that these actions basically make these "borders" into jailers, and the homes of these Uighurs into prisons.

[Major Nikon]

42. I would prefer you just answer my question from #25 that you still haven't

But if you want to dodge discussion by repeating your sermon that provides its own answer. Amazing what you reveal without even trying, or rather because of it.

[guillaumeb]

43. Follow MM's advice.

Start another post on this subject.

Have a nice day.

[Major Nikon]

44. Blaming your refusal to engage in discussion on someone else is also revealing

Just sayin’

[Mariana]

75. That is how Gil practices Christianity.

Gil says Jesus's message is to do to others as you would have done to you. Gil says he is a Christian. Gil exemplifies Christianity.

[guillaumeb]

81. MK's replies are an example if diversion.

He can choose to discuss the actual post, or he can divert to another topic.

[MineralMan]

79. Please stop calling me out like that.

Just please stop. I'm not an example for your posts. I insist!

[guillaumeb]

80. Simply repeating your own advice.

Unless your position has evolved.

[MineralMan]

82. I speak for myself. I insist that you not speak for me,

Nor use me as an example for any purpose whatsoever. Just stop doing that, please! It's extremely rude to speak for me. We agree on almost nothing. But stop!

You can talk to me. You can talk about me. Do not, however, refer to me as an example anyone should follow. Just please stop doing that! I will speak for myself. You will not speak for me. Ever!

[guillaumeb]

83. And do you feel free to speak for theists?

Edited to add:

You are also free to discuss this actual post.

[MineralMan]

84. Not the same thing in any way.

Do not refer to my screen name in giving advice to anyone. Just dont. It's beyond rude to do so. Just stop doing that, please.

That's it. I will not respond to further posts in this subthread.

[guillaumeb]

85. Creating another rule?

I loved that post about the nominal theists.

[trotsky]

89. Just fucking stop doing what he asked you to stop doing.

Be a fucking decent human being, gil. You know, like your religion is supposed to help you be. Personally I think your religion makes people meaner, more tribalistic, and more judgmental. So far your escapades on DU have only served to confirm all of that for me.

[guillaumeb]

90. I loved my response:

Creating another rule?

I loved that post about the nominal theists.

Mainly because it is so appropriate.

[trotsky]

91. Just fucking stop doing what he asked you to stop doing.

Be a fucking decent human being, gil. You know, like your religion is supposed to help you be. Personally I think your religion makes people meaner, more tribalistic, and more judgmental. So far your escapades on DU have only served to confirm all of that for me.

[guillaumeb]

92. The double standard is evident.

To most.

[trotsky]

93. You claim to be a follower of Jesus.

You don't act like he said you should.

Since neither MineralMan nor I claim to be Christians, there is no "double standard." You, however, have set a yardstick by which your behavior can be measured.

And you fall far, far short.

Go ahead, insult me again and show me I'm even more right.

[guillaumeb]

94. Refer to my previous reply.

No religious belief is necessary to validate it.

[trotsky]

95. You just keep pointing at the motes in others' eyes while ignoring the plank in your own.

Just like Jesus told you do to, right?

[guillaumeb]

96. And keep avoiding the substance if the post.

We understand why.

[trotsky]

97. Yes, "we" do.

Because actual substantive discussion is impossible with you.

Be the change you want to see. Act like the Christian you claim to be. Show us what your religion means. Show us how your religion makes you a better person.

Or keep whining and judging others. Your call. I win either way - either you DO start behaving yourself, or you further discredit yourself and your religion.

[guillaumeb]

98. 1.1 million spies being placed in the homes of theists.

What does this say about the people running the Chinese Government?

If they were theists, the predictable response would be that it is their theism that encourages this behavior, but because they are not theists, the predictable meme does not hold.

So some avoid the actual substance and engage in endless diversion. But the oppression persists.

[trotsky]

99. It is their totalitarian government responsible for this behavior.

Please demonstrate *exactly* how it is anything else.

Go ahead.

[guillaumeb]

100. And the leaders of this totalitarian Government are.....?

Theists?

[trotsky]

101. I don't know which leaders are responsible, nor what they truly believe.

Have *any* of them said they have ordered this *because* they are atheists?

Please present your evidence that they are all atheists who are doing this BECAUSE of atheism.

[guillaumeb]

102. The leaders are atheists.

And are behaving exactly as their theistic totalitarian counterparts do.

[trotsky]

103. But you made an additional claim.

You claimed they are ordering this action because of atheism.

Are you admitting you have no evidence to support that claim?

[guillaumeb]

104. No, I did not make that claim.

I never suggested anything like that. I simply noted the facts.

[trotsky]

105. So you now admit atheism had nothing to do with this?

That's great! You are learning.

But do you understand yet that when a theist *specifically claims* their actions are motivated by their religion, then that's an entirely different case than just atheists and theists both capable of doing bad things?

[guillaumeb]

106. Again with the misframing.

There is no "now" to this.

There never was a "this" to be changed.

[trotsky]

107. Did atheism have anything to do with this or not?

You are giving conflicting answers.

Please state whether you think atheism was responsible for this action ordered by the Chinese government.

I cannot argue with someone who does not take a consistent position.

[guillaumeb]

108. You are making accusations. 2 of them. Followed by another.

And that is the issue.

So how can I have dialogue with one who misstates or misreads what I wrote?

[trotsky]

109. I am asking a question. You won't answer it.

Is atheism responsible or not?

Why won't you answer?

[guillaumeb]

110. Admit what you did. eom

[trotsky]

111. I fully admit I'm asking a question.

Because you won't answer it, I have to keep guessing what it is you're saying.

If you'd just answer the question, you could put an end to my confusion.

Is atheism responsible for the actions taken by the Chinese government? Answer "yes" or "no."

Any response other than "yes" or "no" will be ignored and taken as your admission of defeat. I refuse to let you drag me into the muck with you.

[guillaumeb]

112. I understand your refusal.

But the answer to my question is contained in your replies.

As was my answer to your diversionary question contained in my original post.

And THAT is the real obstacle to dialogue.

Goodbye for now. Another post to add about China and the repression the leaders are committing.

[trotsky]

113. Motte and bailey. n/t

[guillaumeb]

114. Avoidance.

More in this subject.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218303248

[edhopper]

16. I will have to look for those post

that say there would be no war or oppression without religion.

[Major Nikon]

40. Good luck with that

Much easier to burn down strawmen than to actually discuss real arguments.

[Act_of_Reparation]

17. Whatever.

An excruciatingly oversimplistic reading of human behavior supported by a worthlessly cursory selection of anecdotal "evidence". None of this crackerjack, Mickey Mouse, armchair sociology explains why totalitarians do what they do, or why billions of ostensibly normal people would even put up with them.

Anyone with half a brain and a few hours to kill could list literally hundreds of ideas, notions, strong opinions, and sincerely held beliefs that have never been associated, much less involved, with oppression. Clearly, the beliefs matter.

[guillaumeb]

21. We agree that this is totalitarianism.

Do we also agree that totalitarians are not limited to theists?

[trotsky]

23. "totalitarians are not limited to theists"

NO ONE has ever said otherwise, gil.

Why do you INSIST on presenting and knocking down straw men? Why can't you just discuss views that have actually been presented instead?

[guillaumeb]

29. Well, you could discuss the actual post,

and what it says about the totalitarians who run the country of China.

[trotsky]

37. How about you discuss the actual post then?

"totalitarians are not limited to theists" is a claim that has fuck-all do to with your post. Thank you for admitting as much.

[Act_of_Reparation]

26. I'm sure we agree on a great many things.

The point is you're barking up the wrong tree.

All government derives its power from the people. What motivates the totalitarian isn't as important as what motivates people to support them.

And before you start tilting at strawmen: no, religion is not a unique motivator, either.

[guillaumeb]

30. What leads you to assume that the mass of the Chinese people support their own Government?

Fear is a motivator.

[Act_of_Reparation]

36. What leads you to believe they don't?

You think the Chinese people are afraid?

Fuck me running, you need to get out more.

[edhopper]

24. While in Saudi Arabia...

But off the Saudi coast in Bahrain, Camillo Ballin, the Catholic bishop of Northern Arabia, complains that nothing has changed for Saudi Arabia’s Christians. Private prayer is tolerated, but the public display of Christian symbols is not. Communion in a country that bans wine is problematic. Priests sneak in as cooks or mechanics to tend to their flocks.

https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2018/08/02/saudi-arabia-may-relax-its-ban-on-christian-churches


That awful atheist Saudi regime.

[guillaumeb]

27. Except for the fact that I ended by writing:

When I read various posts that try to explain that religion is the prime reason for war, or violence, or repression, or oppression, or any of a list of things, my reaction is to notice that all of these things are done by totalitarians. Most of these totalitarians are theists, but that is because theists represent the majority of humans.

But when totalitarian non-theists are in charge, the exact same negative behaviors are present.

[edhopper]

46. So what is your point?

that religion isn't one of the causes of those things?

That atheism has something to do with this.

That atheist say all atheist are good people?

I am not clear of whynyou posted this.

[guillaumeb]

47. Simply pointing out the obvious.

That people behave badly for a variety of reasons. In this particular case, it is totalitarian atheists attacking theists.

Just as some here post an endless series of instances of theists behaving badly.

[edhopper]

49. Are they doing it becaue of atheism.

they way they Saudis are doing it because of Islam?

[guillaumeb]

50. They are doing it because they are totalitarians.

As are the Saudi leaders totalitarians.

[edhopper]

55. The Saudis clearly state they are doing it because of Islam

They say their religion dictates their actions.

Are the Chinese sayingthey are doing it because of atheism?

[guillaumeb]

57. The Saudis make this claim.

That means what exactly? That all Muslims agree with them?

[edhopper]

58. of course not

whatnthe hell does thatnmean.

You do things because of faith, does thatnmean all people with the same faith do the same thing.

What kind of strwman argument are you trying here?

[guillaumeb]

59. Totalitarians make claims to justify what they choose to do.

It provides external validation.

[edhopper]

60. So no one is motivated by religion?

or religion only motivates people to do good, never evil?

Which one?

[guillaumeb]

61. People are motivated to do what they want.

And if they can claim that it is for a higher purpose, so much the better.

[trotsky]

72. "if they can claim that it is for a higher purpose, so much the better."

Which is EXACTLY why religion is especially dangerous.

It outright states that the purpose is higher than human reason can comprehend - and conditions its followers to accept those claims.

[guillaumeb]

73. Dangerous?

Is patriotism dangerous?

[trotsky]

74. #Whataboutism n/t

[guillaumeb]

76. Avoidance eom

[trotsky]

86. Oh absolutely.

I'm avoiding you changing the subject. I know how much that pisses you off, and makes you have to lash out like you do.

For what must certainly by the 900th time by now, here's your reminder that you're in the RELIGION forum, gil. RELIGION is the topic of discussion. Not patriotism, not the Chinese government, not sympathizing with Trump supporters, not posting from sites that advocate for banning abortion. None of the other bullshit you've posted over the years.

Not that I expect you to stop, no, you've got an agenda to push, and you are definitely committed to it. You're certainly not committed to your religion's alleged founder's message, though.

[guillaumeb]

87. Read the post.

Feel free to comment on the substance of the post, or avoid it if you wish.

And I can understand your avoidance because the actual topic here runs counter to the meme that a few here love to promote.

[trotsky]

88. So says Captain Avoidance.

Whatever you say, gil.

You have fits when people want to talk about religion (in the RELIGION forum of all places), and you have fits when people WON'T stay on topic to bash atheism like you want.

Everyone sees through you at this point.

[MineralMan]

77. It certainly can be. German Nazis were

Quite patriotic. Are you sure of your definition of patriotism? It can lead to good or evil actions.

[guillaumeb]

78. We agree on this. eom

[Major Nikon]

53. Notice how you just get a repeat of the sermon rather than an answer

Not noticeably different than attempting discussion with a street corner preacher.

[Major Nikon]

45. You don't even need to go that far

China is dealing with a terrorist group that declared jihad on them years ago and has carried out that threat by murdering hundreds, if not thousands, of innocents. In typical Chinese fashion they aren’t afraid of being criticized for human rights abuses in dealing with the issue. Still some would like to ignore the underlying cause which is religious extremism because that doesn’t fit their sermon about teh evil atheism.

[guillaumeb]

48. I could read these talking points on other sites.

But I do not bother.

This sounds like classic victim blaming.

[Major Nikon]

51. Name one

Looks more like your willingness to substitute ad hominem in place of discussion. Very telling that.

[guillaumeb]

52. Victim blaming.

A classic move.

[Major Nikon]

54. You should go back and read what I wrote

Because you obviously didn’t understand it.

Meanwhile I asked for a cite for your alleged talking point and so far <crickets> on that one. Your non-answers speak volumes, especially in regards to chickenshit ad hominem.

Just sayin’

[guillaumeb]

56. I did.

Here it is:

China is dealing with a 1) terrorist group that 2) declared jihad on them years ago and has carried out that threat by murdering hundreds, if not thousands, of innocents. In 3) typical Chinese fashion they aren’t afraid of being criticized for human rights abuses in dealing with the issue. Still some would like to ignore the underlying cause which is religious extremism 4) because that doesn’t fit their sermon about teh evil atheism.

1) Calling all Uighurs a terrorist group? And with no evidence?

2) "declared jihad"? evidence for an assertion lacking again.

3) "typical Chinese fashion"? What exactly are you saying about the Chinese?

4) "evil atheism"? Another example of a claim with zero evidence.


If this is your idea of dialogue, we have no common ground for doalogue.

[Major Nikon]

62. So now let's explore all the ways you are full of shit

1) Calling all Uighurs a terrorist group? And with no evidence?

Didn’t call all Uighurs a terrorist group. I supposed you could have asked for clarification before you made such a ridiculous inference and before embarrassing yourself, but I’m happy to set you straight after stepping in that.

2) "declared jihad"? evidence for an assertion lacking again.

Nor was it asked for. I suppose you’re simply assuming I won’t support my assertions like you never do, but as they say, assumptions are the mother of all fuckups.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkistan_Islamic_Party

3) "typical Chinese fashion"? What exactly are you saying about the Chinese?

I’m saying the government in China frequently engages in human rights abuses, which is kinda the same thing you are saying.

4) "evil atheism"? Another example of a claim with zero evidence.

The best thing about sarcasm is not everyone gets it.

[guillaumeb]

63. Yes, call it sarcasm.

Others might call it Islamophobia.

[Major Nikon]

64. "Evil atheism" is Islamophobia?

I’ve read quite a bit of mindless silly shit in your posts, but I have to say that one takes the cake.

[guillaumeb]

65. You are amazing.

[Major Nikon]

66. I see you have no defense for your ad hominem fuckery

Not surprised really.

[guillaumeb]

67. Your own words are my defense.

China is dealing with a terrorist group that declared jihad on them years ago and has carried out that threat by murdering hundreds, if not thousands, of innocents. In typical Chinese fashion they aren’t afraid of being criticized for human rights abuses in dealing with the issue. Still some would like to ignore the underlying cause which is religious extremism because that doesn’t fit their sermon about teh evil atheism.


Your own words, which you claim say something different.

Have you ever read 1984?

[Major Nikon]

68. My own words already detailed your fuck up

I posted a link to the Russia funded jihadist group that declared war against China. Instead of reading it you continue with your strawman bullshit about how I was referring to “all Uighurs” and even doubled down on your fuckery accusing me of Islamophobia.

Even for you that’s some fucked up shit, and that’s saying something.

[guillaumeb]

69. Congratulations on convincing yourself.

Well done.