Nothing in the student's question can be construed as offensive -- she asked in a forum why the US hasn't responded to genocide and oppression of the Uyghurs (her brother has been detained since 2017 by the Chinese government).
In response, the Chinese students in the audience jeered, booed, and left the room. Through a representative group, which may or may not actually represent the students: "[w]e left today’s colloquium because we felt that the atmosphere in that room was extremely hostile towards us . . . [a]t that moment, we were not sitting in a classroom; we were crucified in a courtroom for crimes that we did not commit."
If they were asked to personally answer for their nation's genocide, I could see this remark having validity. However, they weren't, but by rudely interjecting into a clear question they made it about them, and facts and morality are not on their government's side. In addition to this being extremely rude decorum, their response shows a loyalist's denial of reality.
This has been the Chinese MO for quite a while now. Always play the victim. Never engage in conversations, never answer anything. Just blame the other side to be offensive to Chinese culture. This is happening everywhere, all the way to the top.
Can you walk me through how you got from the grandparent's comment's point that they observed CCP leadership and loyalists play the victim, to your pointed question that they should be victimized?
I'm confused, because the grandparent identified a thought-terminating cliched approach, and your point seems to be unrelated, so I feel like I'm missing steps between.
It was rude and incredibly offensive, but is it really newsworthy? What should the school do? Hunt down and reprimand these students? Prevent them from standing up during a Q&A? Send them to mandatory education programs on the subject?
I personally don't want my university to have a public stance on these issues, no matter how one sided. Just provide educational services and a safe environment to learn (safe as in physically safe)
How about forcing them to sign a declaration acknowledging the genocide of their government or be expelled. We know it is happening we don’t need shitty people in our country if they want to deny it.
Yeah, I would be against that as well. That sounds awful, kind of like a loyalty test. It reminds me of terrible stories after 9/11 from Middle Eastern American's getting eyed suspiciously and having their loyalties questioned. Imagine being an Arab and some school making you sign something like "9/11 was bad"?
We already have companies cut ties with Russia I don’t see this as being any different. Cut ties with people with oppressive views. Screw them is my feelings.
Economic sanctions are a very, very different thing from coerced 'confessions' from individuals. There are governments that engage in such practices, but they have no place in a free society.
Nothing is coerced and there is no confession. If you don’t agree with the statement then just don’t go to that school. You talk about a free society but Uyghur are being rounded up and put in re-education/concentration camps that also has no place in a free society. We do agree they are being rounded up unwillingly right? A university could have a declaration of values that each student must sign. If they don’t agree with that political stance then don’t attend.
Of course China is not a free society. The problem with what you suggest is, who gets to decide the political requirements on such institutions? Well, politicians will. So lovely, now we have bureaucrats and politicians deciding what must be taught, and what cannot be taught or even discussed in our educational institutions. What could possibly go wrong?
The only way to prevent such dictatorial mandatory opinions in education is to have no dictated mandatory opinions.
Free discourse is the only answer, and yes that means discussing abhorrent opinions and statements. The right answer to the darkness is to flood it with light.
Or the university could ask the students to take a class on how the oil rich middle eastern countries have spread their sects bundled with separatist and anti-national ideology in various countries by funding mosques for decades... and have students debate whether they agree with how it's handled in China or France or Germany.
Cornell is a private university that _could_ do that, but they won't because every cent of their federal grant money would be pulled for violating 1A rights.
No one is claiming people shouldn't be allowed to talk about it. But that means allowing people to have opposing thoughts no matter how wrong-headed
A lot of people are just uninterested in foreign affairs and want to go about living their lives. In that case you're not getting them to "take a stance", you're getting them to be obedient. And for what purpose? You want to argue there should be a draft and we should fight this injustice? I may disagree but fine. But if you want to argue that we need to force Chinese students to sign some paper that states a belief, then that sounds awful regardless of what that piece of paper says.
>But if you want to argue that we need to force Chinese students to sign some paper that states a belief...
Where on earth did you pull that from? Nobody asked them to do or say anything, they chose to do and say things though. Surely that's on them?
The stance referred to was that of Cornell University, given that one of their students exercised their right of free speech and was abused for it. They can't dodge their responsibilities on that.
> The stance referred to was that of Cornell University, given that one of their students exercised their right of free speech and was abused for it. They can't dodge their responsibilities on that.
Does the 1st amendment come with responsibilities? Maybe that would have been a good idea, but I thought it was just rights.
So shouting down speakers in college campuses should be reprimanded? Okay I'll remember that. Plus, the students left in protest. No one stopped the q&a
Gathering the students and telling them that what they did was wrong is exactly the kind of thing to do here.
But I am under the impression that some students left (no problem with that) while others stayed and kept disrupting the event. On retrospect the article isn't clear if they just voiced something and left or if they kept there voicing the complaints.
Here, the Uyghur student is the one the mob (Chinese students) canceled.
Should the Chinese students be reprimanded, it may likely be due to violation of an honor code of behavior if Cornell has such a policy (many universities due), which would be a contractual violation.
"There was audible booing and jeering going on from the Chinese students partway through her question, and during the answer they started to get up and just walked out of the room,"
Let's not go over the top, the reaction is not uncommon in public events when a person or a group very strongly objects to what is being said. Whether this is rude or disrespectful is another issue but the point is that this happens all the time. It's not really newsworthy.
Now, a key issue here and in your comment is the choice of terms. China and the vast majority of Chinese people will object and be offended by the use of the term "genocide". The term really is pushed in order to frame the narrative, and it has proved extremely effective (as can be seen here), but is not established fact.
Words have meaning. Genocide is not “horrible mistreatment of a group I believe is sympathetic”.
The Chinese treatment of Uighurs is deplorable, and should be loudly condemned.
Russian invasion and shelling of Ukrainian cities is deplorable and should be even more loudly condemned. It’s much worse than Chinese treatment of Uighurs.
Neither are genocide. Genocide is slaughtering people with the explicit purpose of eliminating a particular type of person.
Attempting to suppress a culture is bad, and on a spectrum whose terminal point is genocide, but when we jump to the terminal point, we lose all ability to distinguish shades of grey in bad behavior.
> can be construed as offensive
...
> loyalist's denial of reality
Uyghur student adopting State Department propaganda that XJ is genocide is offensive to PRC nationalist who doesn't view XJ as genocide seems pretty straight forward. One sides facts and morality is just another sides definition of useful idiot / propaganda. "Crimes they did not commit" is not about answering for their nations "genocide", it's denying there's any crimes are being committed at all.
The Cornell administration? Which has just been wheedling their dads for donations to buy a new biomed building, and fund another 114 worthless administrative jobs on campus? Those guys?
Please, this is a business. Standards for behavior can be found at the Finger Lakes Little League, if you so desire.
They just call it a code of conduct, those students did harass, disorderly conduct, and did disrupt a university activity, which are prohibited and their actions are against all six of Cornell's Core Values.
>"In determining the appropriate sanctions for a violation of sections addressing assault and
endangerment, harassment, and hazing, the decision-maker shall consider whether the behavior
towards an individual has been demonstrated to have been was motivated by a person’s or group’s
age, race, ethnicity, creed, color, national origin, sexual orientation, military status, political
affiliation, sex, gender identity or expression, disability, predisposing genetic characteristics,
familial status, or marital status." https://scl.cornell.edu/sites/scl/files/documents/Cornell%20...
There are multiple sides to attributing whether XJ is a genocide vs crimes against humanity vs COIN/deradicalization. Deradicalization has plurality of global support, followed by crimes against humanity, absolute minority position is genocide. Are foreign students expected to fully align with US foreign policy when they study in US?
Leaving in protest, fine. But jeering, booing and taunting, that’s a step too far. That no longer protesting a speaker as part of a free debate, but instead attacking them as an individual in the hopes of cowing them into submission.
There’s no space for that kind of behaviour in a university debate. The individual in question wasn’t a celebrity or politician knowingly stepping into the lions den, but just a student asking an honest and fair question.
> There’s no space for that kind of behaviour in a university debate.
Setting the present question aside, I think this is a very time-bound point of view. There used to be riots in Harvard Yard over theological questions. Now we're so cowed that a little booing and a walkout is national news. I think we could use to be a little ruder to each other.
Maybe I'm starting to get old, but indeed to me booing sounds like part and parcel of a university debate on a divisive topic... People clap, people boo, sometimes worse!
The big difference is that if you’re attending a riot in Harvard Yard, then you clearly know what you’re getting yourself into, and you’re making an informed decision to participate and accept the consequences.
However if you’re someone attending a spoken debate, and you’re asking a reasonable question backed by lived experience (as opposed to a deliberately provocative question based on the assumed experiences of others), then you shouldn’t be subjected to direct personal attacks.
Attacking someone because their lived experiences run counter to your preferred world view is just intellectual cowardice. You’re neither trying to learn from the speaker, or provide a valuable counter-experience. You’re running from knowledge that might force you re-assess your world view.
>But jeering, booing and taunting, that’s a step too far. That no longer protesting a speaker as part of a free debate, but instead attacking them as an individual in the hopes of cowing them into submission.
That would remove a significant portion of campus leftists.
>Are you saying that it's right or unacceptable from anyone?
Are you asking for my personal opinion, the opinion of college administration, the opinion of student bodies, etc.?
>Because it sounds like you are trying to turn it into whataboutism.
It's not whataboutism because campus leftists have been doing exactly what the OP described:
"But jeering, booing and taunting, that’s a step too far. That no longer protesting a speaker as part of a free debate, but instead attacking them as an individual in the hopes of cowing them into submission."
Students should be cordial and have spirited debate free of jeering and taunting. That used to be the standard.
>because you are trying to distract from unacceptable behaviour by saying "but the left..."
This is a non sequitur. I am not trying to distract anyone, I'm pointing out that if the standard is to exclude those who jeer, taunt, and attack the individual in the hopes of cowing them into submission, then this would lead to large portions of campus leftist being punished.
>Thank you for confirming
That wasn't a confirmation, you literally proved my point for me.
>unable to have discourse without blaming people uninvolved in the situation via whataboutism.
This is by definition not whataboutism because I am not attempting to discredit the OPs position.
QED.
Thank you for confirming that you are incapable of having discourse because you are incapable of understanding basic concepts like whataboutism and are T R I G G E R E D because someone called out leftists as those partaking in unacceptable behavior.
Correct, in that it would remove extremists who jeer, boo, and taunt. A consistent policy that is the tradeoff of living in a society that honors free speech.
To be fair, it would also remove most Proud Boys and other right-aligned extremists one reads about in the recent news. It would allow well-behaved Nazi sympathizers and other Alt-Right folks, like Bannon and Milo and many right-wing newsfolks, to be able to speak at forums unless the universities recognize that giving a platform to people driven by pseudo-racial nationalism or other incoherent worldviews advocating for violence is a not part of their charter.
The overwhelming majority of students in all university campuses are left leaning. Conservative ideas seem to become more appealing with maturity. Also helps to be a taxpayer/homeowner/parent.
Is that true? The overwhelming majority are centrist and left leaning? Curious. I've heard thst statement as a talking point but haven't wasted the time to source it from Pew or other reputable sources since it's only come up in conversation with nationalist uncles at Thanksgiving.
> But research suggests that there is a neglected dimension of polarization, one driven by age: younger people are disproportionately liberal, and then drift steadily to the right, becoming just as disproportionately conservative by retirement age... “We can say, with a great deal of confidence, that people get more conservative when they get older—and a lot more,” says Chicago Booth’s Sam Peltzman, who conducted the research. “It’s not just a little bit. It’s a pretty big change over their lifetime.”
Your link says that at age 25, 33% are liberal, 25% conservative, and the rest moderate. "Overwhelmingly liberal" is hyperbole. "Lean liberal" is accurate.
In much of academic debate, free speech is just some ivory tower topic discussed between two sides without much personal risk or involvement, and whoever wins or loses, whatever, afterward you go and grab lunch and forget about it.
But in this case there is such a vast power differential between the two (the persecuted and the persecutor). The Chinese kids are literally taunting the victim of a genocide their country is perpetrating. That's not a free speech/hate speech thing, that's just straight up bullying... while that girl's family is still in danger of life and liberty.
"Hahahaha your family is in danger, boooo you suck, hahaha." That is unacceptable in any circumstance, akin to Holocaust denialism in a synagogue, except that in this case the Uyghur holocaust is still ongoing. One side has no power and is at risk of death while the other side is completely protected and just being assholes.
It's not a freedom of expression issue, it's a basic human decency thing. If you don't want to hear it, just leave, don't taunt the people your government is enslaving and murdering.
Disruptive protest has been a thing on college campuses since colleges existed. Imagine if one took the commenters in this thread seriously and universities had just expelled all Vietnam protestors, segregation protestors, anti-Iraq/Afghanistan war protestors, sexual assault activists, etc. These groups have all took part in equally if not much more disruptive protests, which have been well documented.
Using your definition of genocide, then anything qualifies as genocide cause everyone is a member of a group.
To show you how absurd your definition is, the ughyur classmate committed genocide because she caused serious mental harm to members of a group ( cornell's chinese students assocation ) [B].
> [D] Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
Yeah, I used to believe that to, but uyghurs got preferential treatment. AKA they were allowed to have more babies than the average chinese.
> Links
Wikipedia is highly suspect, unreliable and untrustworthy in matters involving politics.
In a genocide, why did the chinese government only detain her brother and leave her, her parents, rest of siblings, cousins, etc alone?
How did the uyghur population increase during the genocide?
If china is committing genocide, why aren't millions of ughyurs fleeing to neighboring countries?
Why are there tens of thousands of kazakhs, mongols, kyrgz, russians, etc in xinjiang? How come they don't see any genocide? You do realize that there are tons of vlogs of foreigners in xinjiang right?
Examples of genocide -> native americans, holocaust. Now compare those with alleged uyghur genocide.
I find it mildly curious how much you're struggling here to make your point against something that is exceptionally well documented.
My definition is the UN Genocide Convention of 1948's definition. The acts are 1:1 to the definition.
Your points on "politics" in wikipedia and associated whataboutisms aren't relevant, but aside from that attempt at a side-step I highly encourage you to read the very well sourced article that is accessible for people who have no idea that the Uyghur's are the target of a genocide, link repeated here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_genocide
The US State Department’s legal office determined that there was insufficient evidence to prove genocide. If you don’t believe that I don’t know who you would believe.
Don’t call people liars without doing proper research. What I said is 100% factually correct.
The State Department’s Office of the Legal Advisor, contrary to Pompeo’s statements, stated that there was insufficient evidence to prove genocide. Yes, the Trump and Biden administrations declared genocide. I trust the actual lawyers more.
> Don’t call people liars without doing proper research.
Agreed!
> What I said is 100% factually correct.
Which is why it is stays within the realm of negligently misleading. Stated policy, based on the facts of the situation (versus legal opinion) of the US is, for administrations across a massive political divide, that China is committing genocide against the Uyghur people. Note your own article, which clearly shows that the legal office's position is tentative, says
"The cautious conclusions of State Department lawyers do not constitute a judgment that genocide did not occur in Xinjiang but reflects the difficulties of proving genocide, which involves the destruction “in whole or in part” of a group of people based on their national, religious, racial, or ethnic identity, in a court of law."
So we have: (1) sufficient intelligence that widely different political administrations draw the conclusion that genocide is occurring; (2) legal opinion, which can be used to justify policies for the US State department, that "we would really like more evidence before drawing the conclusion of genocide."
Ergo, your attempt to downgrade "genocide is occurring" to "well, it COULD be occurring, but really its probably not because we can't prove it sufficiently in a court of law because we lack direct evidence despite mountains of evidence existing because to say there IS sufficient evidence means the US has to cut ties a lot quicker with China than it is ready to do thus let us continue to perpetuate the opinion that this Uyghur thing is overblown" is insufficient.
In politics people make things up and mislead in order to further their goals. This is a very clear case of this, like previously the claim that Iraq had WMDs was.
> I find it mildly curious how much you're struggling here
Where was the struggle? I point by point debunked your claims.
> to make your point against something that is exceptionally well documented.
So well documented that you can't even provide one example?
> Your points on "politics" in wikipedia and associated whataboutisms aren't relevant,
Oh there it is. "Whataboutism" and it's obvious what is going on here.
As someone who once believed it and am more than willing to believe it again, show me the evidence. I asked simple questions in this thread, you nor anyone else has been able to answer it. I'm not struggling with anything because I'm stating the truth.
As I said, I once believed it and am more than willing to believe it. I just don't like being lied to.
And of course the only comment in this entire thread of any substance gets flagged.
No, despite your assertions to the contrary, we have addressed your arguments. Please read the links provided.
To those reading along the thread: qiskit is engaging in a very common apologetics approach intended to sow doubt on obvious things. This has been used by Russia as of late in their media, and has a long and storied history among high-demand religions attempting to create a false worldview. It proceeds by asking insincere "simple questions", ignoring responses, demanding more evidence than what was provided, then claiming failure of response because no one has supported their worldview. It often proceeds to stories of conversion from a different worldview and claims of persecution for their worldview. It's effective when people don't have time to evaluate the merits of the claims.
> No, despite your assertions to the contrary, we have addressed your arguments.
Who is we? Are you working with someone? Are you part of some goup?
> Please read the links provided.
I have. Even before you provided it. What about "Once I believed in the ughyur genocide propaganda" did't you understand?
And no. You haven't addressed anything. I asked you specific questions and instead of answering them, you are telling me to go find the answers. The only reason you'd do that is because I'm right and you can't answer my questions.
> To those reading along the thread: qiskit is engaging in a very common apologetics approach intended to sow doubt on obvious things.
Nice try. Do you realize you come off as someone reading a script rather than someone truly interested in facts or reason.
> It proceeds by asking insincere "simple questions", ignoring responses
Simple questions like "How does a population increase during a genocide" isn't insincere just because it makes a mockery of your false assertion.
> This has been used by Russia as of late in their media
Don't you mean the "CCP"?
When I wrote: "Oh there it is. "Whataboutism" and it's obvious what is going on here."
This is gross behavior by the Chinese students, but let's hold off on calls for expulsion, formal discipline, etc.
There's such a thing as a "reputation" for a reason. It's a way societies can hold people accountable for behaviors that are legally protected.
It should be legal to publish a list of names of students who walked out, and it should be considered reasonable for people to express that we believe their conduct is shameful.
Any audio clip would help commenters determine whether the “taunt” and “jeer” words are justified.
If they are, the students that walked out are dicks, and since they were contributing to the discussion are just as worthy of naming in the story as the Uighur questioner.
hate to say it
... but while fine and they can do what they want....is it perhaps telling that they aren't fit to be leaders....and should probably be watched for spying.
I wonder if it's in the interests of the United States to have these international students studying here. If they are unable to contribute to the academic debate in any way besides maintaining the CCP line of genocide denial, should their visas be revoked? Would such an action by the federal government be in violation of the 1st Amendment?
It may seem like an extreme suggestion, but surely a group of international students that engaged in Holocaust denial in Germany would be on the next flight home.
During my time at Columbia, I would generally enter the gates at 116th and walk to the Engineering corner via college walk. Occasionally, if there was an anti-israel protest going on, the simple fact that I wear a kippa (skullcap, i.e. obviously jewish) would make me a target for harassment by those "protesting". I ignored it and moved on, there was no point of engaging with them. though I can't say it didn't bother or stick with me during the day making those days less or non productive.
Do I understand why they are protesting Israel? yes. do I disagree with them yes? Do I think they have a right to protest, yes. However, all schools should have codes of conduct that relate to how one deals with their peers. If one can't deal with their peers in a respectful manner they don't deserve the right to be at the school. If the only way to protest is by shouting a speaker you dislike down, you are treating the speaker and the students who came to hear him speak with disrespect. There's no reason on/adjacent to a college campus one can't protest peacefully. A silent protest with signs that everyone has to see as they enter the building would get their point across while treating their fellow students in the manner that they demand to be treated as well.
The problem becomes when you "excuse" those who you feel are weaker for acting in a way while only criticizing those who you view as stronger/powerful for acting that way. Why? because the strong/powerful are the strong and powerful, if you excuse it for the weak, they'll just do it as well and with more impact. One has to not accept it anywhere and therefore not give the "powerful" any room to behave this way against the "weak". It's the main reason I dislike the concept of "punching up" vs "punching down". if you excuse "punching up", those above will end up "punching down" much harder.
this is a problem on both the left and right in the US (a pox on all their houses). The problem for most of us is that do a terrible time calling out those who are closer to what we consider our ideological allies than calling out those who are further from our ideological circles.
> The problem becomes when you "excuse" those who you feel are weaker for acting in a way while only criticizing those who you view as stronger/powerful for acting that way.
We don't excuse it completely, but we focus our attention on the risks, and the risk of the powerful abusing the weak is far greater - far more harm is done, from slavery to lynching to what is happening to the Uyghur, and if humans are to have freedom and justice, it's the weak who are threatened.
> if you excuse "punching up", those above will end up "punching down" much harder
That seems like Orwellian double-talk (if I remember Orwell's terminology well enough). The powerful have punched down forever, with or without the other happening. We don't need to appease them to avoid their wrath - what a dysfunctional society that would be. They also are in far less danger; it's just words to them, not a threat to their lives or livelihoods.
It's also incredible that we spend our time finding ways to protect the powerful. Not only can they take care of themselves (by definition), we have far better things to attend to. I'm sure some Chinese Communist Party members face discrimination in Xinjiang, and some Russian soliders face it in Ukraine.
101 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 177 ms ] threadNothing in the student's question can be construed as offensive -- she asked in a forum why the US hasn't responded to genocide and oppression of the Uyghurs (her brother has been detained since 2017 by the Chinese government).
In response, the Chinese students in the audience jeered, booed, and left the room. Through a representative group, which may or may not actually represent the students: "[w]e left today’s colloquium because we felt that the atmosphere in that room was extremely hostile towards us . . . [a]t that moment, we were not sitting in a classroom; we were crucified in a courtroom for crimes that we did not commit."
If they were asked to personally answer for their nation's genocide, I could see this remark having validity. However, they weren't, but by rudely interjecting into a clear question they made it about them, and facts and morality are not on their government's side. In addition to this being extremely rude decorum, their response shows a loyalist's denial of reality.
I'm confused, because the grandparent identified a thought-terminating cliched approach, and your point seems to be unrelated, so I feel like I'm missing steps between.
Thank you for asking, instead of dimly downvoting. =)
I personally don't want my university to have a public stance on these issues, no matter how one sided. Just provide educational services and a safe environment to learn (safe as in physically safe)
The only way to prevent such dictatorial mandatory opinions in education is to have no dictated mandatory opinions.
Free discourse is the only answer, and yes that means discussing abhorrent opinions and statements. The right answer to the darkness is to flood it with light.
- France: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6DLKjDlORo
- Germany: https://www.dw.com/en/battling-salafism-on-germanys-streets/...
- China: https://thediplomat.com/2014/10/chinese-salafism-and-the-sau...
For certain things there is no "not having a stance" -- existence forces a stance. To not be against genocide is to be a collaborator.
I consider it newsworthy as it highlights a growing trend of denying reality and pretending to be a victim when a loyalist's pet topic is discussed.
Fact: China is murdering Uyghurs.
Claim: it is offensive to Chinese culture to point out that China is murdering Uyghurs.
Conclusion: China doesn't want to be reminded that it is murdering Uyghurs.
A lot of people are just uninterested in foreign affairs and want to go about living their lives. In that case you're not getting them to "take a stance", you're getting them to be obedient. And for what purpose? You want to argue there should be a draft and we should fight this injustice? I may disagree but fine. But if you want to argue that we need to force Chinese students to sign some paper that states a belief, then that sounds awful regardless of what that piece of paper says.
Where on earth did you pull that from? Nobody asked them to do or say anything, they chose to do and say things though. Surely that's on them?
The stance referred to was that of Cornell University, given that one of their students exercised their right of free speech and was abused for it. They can't dodge their responsibilities on that.
Does the 1st amendment come with responsibilities? Maybe that would have been a good idea, but I thought it was just rights.
Your right are my obligation. That’s how that works.
I think so. It's the first time I've heard of Chinese students in America, actively decrying the claim (regardless of the base reasoning).
Preventing them from getting in Q&A sessions looks like something to do with repeat offenders.
But I am under the impression that some students left (no problem with that) while others stayed and kept disrupting the event. On retrospect the article isn't clear if they just voiced something and left or if they kept there voicing the complaints.
Here, the Uyghur student is the one the mob (Chinese students) canceled.
Should the Chinese students be reprimanded, it may likely be due to violation of an honor code of behavior if Cornell has such a policy (many universities due), which would be a contractual violation.
News is in fact the appropriate alternative to "hunting down", "reprimanding", etc.
Thankfully, there isn't a binary choice between "imprison for life" and "never speak publicly about bad behavior".
Let's not go over the top, the reaction is not uncommon in public events when a person or a group very strongly objects to what is being said. Whether this is rude or disrespectful is another issue but the point is that this happens all the time. It's not really newsworthy.
Now, a key issue here and in your comment is the choice of terms. China and the vast majority of Chinese people will object and be offended by the use of the term "genocide". The term really is pushed in order to frame the narrative, and it has proved extremely effective (as can be seen here), but is not established fact.
Words have meaning. Genocide is not “horrible mistreatment of a group I believe is sympathetic”.
The Chinese treatment of Uighurs is deplorable, and should be loudly condemned.
Russian invasion and shelling of Ukrainian cities is deplorable and should be even more loudly condemned. It’s much worse than Chinese treatment of Uighurs.
Neither are genocide. Genocide is slaughtering people with the explicit purpose of eliminating a particular type of person.
Attempting to suppress a culture is bad, and on a spectrum whose terminal point is genocide, but when we jump to the terminal point, we lose all ability to distinguish shades of grey in bad behavior.
[A] Killing members of the group
[B] Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
[C] Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction
[D] Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
[E] Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
Uyghurs' experience absolutely qualifies.[1]
Links
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide#Acts
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_genocide
https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/02/19/china-uighurs-genocide-...
Uyghur student adopting State Department propaganda that XJ is genocide is offensive to PRC nationalist who doesn't view XJ as genocide seems pretty straight forward. One sides facts and morality is just another sides definition of useful idiot / propaganda. "Crimes they did not commit" is not about answering for their nations "genocide", it's denying there's any crimes are being committed at all.
The Cornell administration? Which has just been wheedling their dads for donations to buy a new biomed building, and fund another 114 worthless administrative jobs on campus? Those guys?
Please, this is a business. Standards for behavior can be found at the Finger Lakes Little League, if you so desire.
So long as gigabucks from the PRC-connected continues to flow into the Ivies, Uyghurs should get used to being rarely seen and not heard there.
Why are you sure about this? Honor codes tend to be a thing at Southern schools.
No, thanks. I find their position detestable, but I support their right to express it.
There’s no space for that kind of behaviour in a university debate. The individual in question wasn’t a celebrity or politician knowingly stepping into the lions den, but just a student asking an honest and fair question.
Setting the present question aside, I think this is a very time-bound point of view. There used to be riots in Harvard Yard over theological questions. Now we're so cowed that a little booing and a walkout is national news. I think we could use to be a little ruder to each other.
However if you’re someone attending a spoken debate, and you’re asking a reasonable question backed by lived experience (as opposed to a deliberately provocative question based on the assumed experiences of others), then you shouldn’t be subjected to direct personal attacks.
Attacking someone because their lived experiences run counter to your preferred world view is just intellectual cowardice. You’re neither trying to learn from the speaker, or provide a valuable counter-experience. You’re running from knowledge that might force you re-assess your world view.
That would remove a significant portion of campus leftists.
Because it sounds like you are trying to turn it into whataboutism.
Are you asking for my personal opinion, the opinion of college administration, the opinion of student bodies, etc.?
>Because it sounds like you are trying to turn it into whataboutism.
It's not whataboutism because campus leftists have been doing exactly what the OP described:
"But jeering, booing and taunting, that’s a step too far. That no longer protesting a speaker as part of a free debate, but instead attacking them as an individual in the hopes of cowing them into submission."
That's the MO for campus "cancel culture".
> It's not whataboutism because campus leftists
Thank you for confirming that you are unable to have discourse without blaming people uninvolved in the situation via whataboutism.
Students should be cordial and have spirited debate free of jeering and taunting. That used to be the standard.
>because you are trying to distract from unacceptable behaviour by saying "but the left..."
This is a non sequitur. I am not trying to distract anyone, I'm pointing out that if the standard is to exclude those who jeer, taunt, and attack the individual in the hopes of cowing them into submission, then this would lead to large portions of campus leftist being punished.
>Thank you for confirming
That wasn't a confirmation, you literally proved my point for me.
>unable to have discourse without blaming people uninvolved in the situation via whataboutism.
This is by definition not whataboutism because I am not attempting to discredit the OPs position.
QED.
Thank you for confirming that you are incapable of having discourse because you are incapable of understanding basic concepts like whataboutism and are T R I G G E R E D because someone called out leftists as those partaking in unacceptable behavior.
To be fair, it would also remove most Proud Boys and other right-aligned extremists one reads about in the recent news. It would allow well-behaved Nazi sympathizers and other Alt-Right folks, like Bannon and Milo and many right-wing newsfolks, to be able to speak at forums unless the universities recognize that giving a platform to people driven by pseudo-racial nationalism or other incoherent worldviews advocating for violence is a not part of their charter.
So, in other words, its a tradeoff.
Mind showing your research?
https://www.chicagobooth.edu/review/there-are-two-americas-a...
But in this case there is such a vast power differential between the two (the persecuted and the persecutor). The Chinese kids are literally taunting the victim of a genocide their country is perpetrating. That's not a free speech/hate speech thing, that's just straight up bullying... while that girl's family is still in danger of life and liberty.
"Hahahaha your family is in danger, boooo you suck, hahaha." That is unacceptable in any circumstance, akin to Holocaust denialism in a synagogue, except that in this case the Uyghur holocaust is still ongoing. One side has no power and is at risk of death while the other side is completely protected and just being assholes.
It's not a freedom of expression issue, it's a basic human decency thing. If you don't want to hear it, just leave, don't taunt the people your government is enslaving and murdering.
[A] Killing members of the group
[B] Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
[C] Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction
[D] Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
[E] Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
Uyghurs' experience absolutely qualifies.[1]
Links
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide#Acts
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_genocide
To show you how absurd your definition is, the ughyur classmate committed genocide because she caused serious mental harm to members of a group ( cornell's chinese students assocation ) [B].
> [D] Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
Yeah, I used to believe that to, but uyghurs got preferential treatment. AKA they were allowed to have more babies than the average chinese.
> Links
Wikipedia is highly suspect, unreliable and untrustworthy in matters involving politics.
In a genocide, why did the chinese government only detain her brother and leave her, her parents, rest of siblings, cousins, etc alone?
How did the uyghur population increase during the genocide?
If china is committing genocide, why aren't millions of ughyurs fleeing to neighboring countries?
Why are there tens of thousands of kazakhs, mongols, kyrgz, russians, etc in xinjiang? How come they don't see any genocide? You do realize that there are tons of vlogs of foreigners in xinjiang right?
Examples of genocide -> native americans, holocaust. Now compare those with alleged uyghur genocide.
My definition is the UN Genocide Convention of 1948's definition. The acts are 1:1 to the definition.
Your points on "politics" in wikipedia and associated whataboutisms aren't relevant, but aside from that attempt at a side-step I highly encourage you to read the very well sourced article that is accessible for people who have no idea that the Uyghur's are the target of a genocide, link repeated here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_genocide
[1] The Trump Administration declared it to be genocide: https://2017-2021.state.gov/determination-of-the-secretary-o...
[2] The Biden administration reiterated this: https://www.dw.com/en/us-renews-china-genocide-claims-over-u...
The State Department’s Office of the Legal Advisor, contrary to Pompeo’s statements, stated that there was insufficient evidence to prove genocide. Yes, the Trump and Biden administrations declared genocide. I trust the actual lawyers more.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/02/19/china-uighurs-genocide-...
Agreed!
> What I said is 100% factually correct.
Which is why it is stays within the realm of negligently misleading. Stated policy, based on the facts of the situation (versus legal opinion) of the US is, for administrations across a massive political divide, that China is committing genocide against the Uyghur people. Note your own article, which clearly shows that the legal office's position is tentative, says
"The cautious conclusions of State Department lawyers do not constitute a judgment that genocide did not occur in Xinjiang but reflects the difficulties of proving genocide, which involves the destruction “in whole or in part” of a group of people based on their national, religious, racial, or ethnic identity, in a court of law."
So we have: (1) sufficient intelligence that widely different political administrations draw the conclusion that genocide is occurring; (2) legal opinion, which can be used to justify policies for the US State department, that "we would really like more evidence before drawing the conclusion of genocide."
Ergo, your attempt to downgrade "genocide is occurring" to "well, it COULD be occurring, but really its probably not because we can't prove it sufficiently in a court of law because we lack direct evidence despite mountains of evidence existing because to say there IS sufficient evidence means the US has to cut ties a lot quicker with China than it is ready to do thus let us continue to perpetuate the opinion that this Uyghur thing is overblown" is insufficient.
In politics people make things up and mislead in order to further their goals. This is a very clear case of this, like previously the claim that Iraq had WMDs was.
Where was the struggle? I point by point debunked your claims.
> to make your point against something that is exceptionally well documented.
So well documented that you can't even provide one example?
> Your points on "politics" in wikipedia and associated whataboutisms aren't relevant,
Oh there it is. "Whataboutism" and it's obvious what is going on here.
As someone who once believed it and am more than willing to believe it again, show me the evidence. I asked simple questions in this thread, you nor anyone else has been able to answer it. I'm not struggling with anything because I'm stating the truth.
As I said, I once believed it and am more than willing to believe it. I just don't like being lied to.
And of course the only comment in this entire thread of any substance gets flagged.
No, despite your assertions to the contrary, we have addressed your arguments. Please read the links provided.
To those reading along the thread: qiskit is engaging in a very common apologetics approach intended to sow doubt on obvious things. This has been used by Russia as of late in their media, and has a long and storied history among high-demand religions attempting to create a false worldview. It proceeds by asking insincere "simple questions", ignoring responses, demanding more evidence than what was provided, then claiming failure of response because no one has supported their worldview. It often proceeds to stories of conversion from a different worldview and claims of persecution for their worldview. It's effective when people don't have time to evaluate the merits of the claims.
Who is we? Are you working with someone? Are you part of some goup?
> Please read the links provided.
I have. Even before you provided it. What about "Once I believed in the ughyur genocide propaganda" did't you understand?
And no. You haven't addressed anything. I asked you specific questions and instead of answering them, you are telling me to go find the answers. The only reason you'd do that is because I'm right and you can't answer my questions.
> To those reading along the thread: qiskit is engaging in a very common apologetics approach intended to sow doubt on obvious things.
Nice try. Do you realize you come off as someone reading a script rather than someone truly interested in facts or reason.
> It proceeds by asking insincere "simple questions", ignoring responses
Simple questions like "How does a population increase during a genocide" isn't insincere just because it makes a mockery of your false assertion.
> This has been used by Russia as of late in their media
Don't you mean the "CCP"?
When I wrote: "Oh there it is. "Whataboutism" and it's obvious what is going on here."
I called it.
There's such a thing as a "reputation" for a reason. It's a way societies can hold people accountable for behaviors that are legally protected.
It should be legal to publish a list of names of students who walked out, and it should be considered reasonable for people to express that we believe their conduct is shameful.
If they are, the students that walked out are dicks, and since they were contributing to the discussion are just as worthy of naming in the story as the Uighur questioner.
It may seem like an extreme suggestion, but surely a group of international students that engaged in Holocaust denial in Germany would be on the next flight home.
Do I understand why they are protesting Israel? yes. do I disagree with them yes? Do I think they have a right to protest, yes. However, all schools should have codes of conduct that relate to how one deals with their peers. If one can't deal with their peers in a respectful manner they don't deserve the right to be at the school. If the only way to protest is by shouting a speaker you dislike down, you are treating the speaker and the students who came to hear him speak with disrespect. There's no reason on/adjacent to a college campus one can't protest peacefully. A silent protest with signs that everyone has to see as they enter the building would get their point across while treating their fellow students in the manner that they demand to be treated as well.
The problem becomes when you "excuse" those who you feel are weaker for acting in a way while only criticizing those who you view as stronger/powerful for acting that way. Why? because the strong/powerful are the strong and powerful, if you excuse it for the weak, they'll just do it as well and with more impact. One has to not accept it anywhere and therefore not give the "powerful" any room to behave this way against the "weak". It's the main reason I dislike the concept of "punching up" vs "punching down". if you excuse "punching up", those above will end up "punching down" much harder.
this is a problem on both the left and right in the US (a pox on all their houses). The problem for most of us is that do a terrible time calling out those who are closer to what we consider our ideological allies than calling out those who are further from our ideological circles.
this is unjust and it happens whether we excuse it or not
We don't excuse it completely, but we focus our attention on the risks, and the risk of the powerful abusing the weak is far greater - far more harm is done, from slavery to lynching to what is happening to the Uyghur, and if humans are to have freedom and justice, it's the weak who are threatened.
> if you excuse "punching up", those above will end up "punching down" much harder
That seems like Orwellian double-talk (if I remember Orwell's terminology well enough). The powerful have punched down forever, with or without the other happening. We don't need to appease them to avoid their wrath - what a dysfunctional society that would be. They also are in far less danger; it's just words to them, not a threat to their lives or livelihoods.
It's also incredible that we spend our time finding ways to protect the powerful. Not only can they take care of themselves (by definition), we have far better things to attend to. I'm sure some Chinese Communist Party members face discrimination in Xinjiang, and some Russian soliders face it in Ukraine.