I think you can experience some humbling events, but teaching people to be humble isn’t exactly the goal of any of the martial arts. Lots of people just end up learning how to be more effective at violence. I used to do some amateur boxing, and I wouldn’t really claim a lot of the guys I boxed with to be especially humble. Lots of contact sports has a lot of ego involved in it.
think a role model of positive masculinity is a good place to start.
Right, but what about being a judo instructor makes you automatically a positive masculine role model? Steven Seagal instructs aikido an even less aggressive martial arts and he’s a giant piece of shit.
And I imagine Joe Rogan didn’t start his career by immediately getting ripped and doing steroids.
I just don’t really think something as simple as taking judo classes is really going to do much to tackle a problem that likely started at the socioeconomic scale.
A large part of conservative propaganda is telling individuals that cleaning their room or working out will solve their problems. When in reality the problems are much more complex and likely systemic in nature.
Lol, there’s already an obsession with martial arts in America. I don’t think having more people with Joe Rogan brain running around is going to help anyone.
None of what you’ve copypasted here would prove anything close to genocide
Lol, I think I specifically outlined that this was evidence of a minority group being suppressed, not genocide.
systematic oppression even if any of it were true
And what is your rebuttal to this sourced information? What evidence do you have to dispute any of the evidence I laid out?
For someone who is so anal about the sourcing of evidence, you seem to be lacking any kind of counter argument.
your “source” presents absolutely no evidence to support their claims, it’s literally just paragraph after paragraph of “trust me bro”.
Lol, what aspect of their write up are you rebutting? In the “paragraphs after paragraphs” of information you are rebutting they state they are utilizing information published by census data published by the Chinese government.
Your only source is also verifiably funded by the US and our allies,
Central European Initiative Eleanor Rathbone Charitable Trust European Union Evan Cornish Foundation Finnish Ministry for Foreign Affairs Foundation for International Law for the Environment International Development Research Centre International Research & Exchanges Board Irish Aid Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Open Society Foundations Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency The Blanes Trust The Miaan Group The United Nations Democracy Fund The United States Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor The United Nations Population Fund Wellcome Trust
And much of these sponsors are also condemning the crimes sponsored by the US in Israel. Just accepting funding from an org doesn’t mean your evidence is by rote incorrect.
You are not rebutting any of the actual evidence, you’re just moralizing.
There is not “plenty of evidence”, there are plenty of wild claims and unverifiable stories,
“Xinjiang is a vast region with an area of 1.66 million km2. Until the 1950s, Uyghurs were the majority ethnic group in the region, accounting for more than 90 percent of the total population.”
“Between the 1940s and the 1980s, attempts to incorporate the region into the modern Chinese national state brought about a 2,500 per cent increase in the Han population. Today, Han and Uyghurs each account for approximately 40 per cent of Xinjiang’s total population of roughly 25.5 million. Clearly, the basic trajectory over the past decades has been one of moving Han rapidly into the region. This is coupled in more recent years with a significant shrinking of the Uyghur population.”
“The Han population in the region increased at an average rate of 8.1 per cent yearly, from 5 per cent in 1947 to around 40 per cent in 2000. Officially, Uyghurs comprise about 45 percent of Xinjiang’s permanent population with Han representing approximately 42 percent, and Kazakh, Hui and other ethnicities making up the rest. However, these figures belie the very high number of long-term resident and temporary Han migrant workers as well as thousands of security personnel in Xinjiang. They also obscure data from the 2020 Chinese Statistical Yearbook, showing that between 2017 and 2019 the birth rate in Xinjiang dropped approximately 48.7 per cent, from 15.88 per thousand in 2017 to 8.14 per thousand in 2019. The average for all of China was 10.48 per thousand.”
“The capital of the province itself went from being a city in which there were hardly any Han Chinese before 1949 to one in which the Uyghurs have been almost completely displaced. In addition, across Xinjiang, urban redesign projects have demolished hundreds of thousands of homes and resettled millions of Uyghur residents on the pretext of ‘civilization’ (文明) and ‘beautification’ (美化).”
“Since the mid-1990s, the gradual exclusion of Uyghurs from state-based employment – and the rising number of private jobs – is statistically verifiable from a variety of sources. While Han Chinese were able to secure employment, Uyghurs were kept out of construction jobs, road-building projects and oil and gas pipelines. Uyghurs with graduate degrees were only employed at an estimated 15 per cent, and, according to a 2013 study, Uyghurs earned an average of 59 per cent of what their Han counterparts earned.”
Source from Minority Rights Group
about a country& region that is currently completely open to foreign tourism no less.
"While Xinjiang is generally open to international tourism, there are specific travel restrictions and measures in place, particularly for certain groups and areas. Generally, foreigners do not need a special permit to enter Xinjiang, but they do need a valid Chinese visa. However, there are restrictions on travel in specific areas, and increased security measures are common, especially in major cities. "
You admit you don’t believe there’s a genocide occuring, yet still choose to believe the people/organizations making these claims despite the fact that all of them claim that a genocide is occuring.
You can still massively suppress a minority group without committing what is commonly thought to be a genocide.
Just because I don’t completely agree with the conclusions made from a body of evidence doesn’t mean the evidence is invalid.
Han chauvinism existing does absolutely nothing to prove the specific accusations being presented. When a government chooses to target a minority population it invariably results in physical evidence, see Palestine for examples.
What accusations of mine are you denying?
As I said there is plenty of evidence to confirm that a minority group is being put into concentration camps for "reeducation " and that they are being forced to move away from their traditional homeland. This isn’t even being denied by the Chinese government, they just validate it as a way to control what they lable as terrorism.
The evidence I provided is sourced by an organization that also documents the crimes currently occuring in Gaza.
should be more than enough reason for any reasonable person to disregard these stories until such evidence is presented.
As I said, there’s plenty of evidence that’s been cross referenced and verified by dozens of advocacy groups who often stand against America’s foreign policy. Most of the evidence comes from internal documents created by the Chinese government itself.
I don’t have any specific prejudice against the Chinese government, it like any government does things that I agree with and disagree with. You on the other hand don’t seem to be able to get over your own biases.
There is plenty of evidence widely available from organizations like human rights watch and amnesty international. Claims that deny any evidence exist of the persecution of China’s Muslim population rely on logical fallacies to attempt to obscure the validity of the body of evidence. Namely ad hominem attacks against the individual who first gathered the evidence to begin with.
While the researcher obviously has biased opinions about the CCP, that doesn’t affect the validity of the evidence gathered, most of which comes directly from publicly available information released by the CCP itself, or from leaked internal communication from party members that have been widely verified by reputable journalists and organizations specializing in human rights violations.
While I personally wouldn’t claim that there is a genocide as we traditionally understand it has occurred, it’s hard to deny that the Uyghur people aren’t being systemically oppressed or that significant human rights violations haven’t occurred.
Simply looking at publicly available census data releases by the CCP we can tell that Uyghur people are being driven from culturally important sites that are being replaced by ethnically Han Chinese, and that Uyghur populations have been shrinking at a worryingly abnormal rate.
If we look at recent history of ethnic conflict within China in tibet, Manchuria, and inner Mongolia, I fail to see why it’s logical to assume that the accusations of crimes against humanity is pure propaganda.
Han chauvinism is well documented, and even Mao Zedong spoke about how it would negatively affect the future of the party. Ethnic conflict/cleansing has been a constant in the region and is part of the foundational history of modern China.
Xinjiang is literally completely open to foreign tourism
No it’s not, large parts of xinjiang require permits to visit, or are still completely blocked to outsiders.
Also, there is plenty of evidence to verify that systemic abuse of minority rights has and still is occurring in China. You deny any of it is valid.
You were the one making accusations about me specifically. Now that your argument completely fell apart, you were talking about someone else? What a fucking loser, go kick rocks.
Free speech means being able to say and support things you believe in without the threat of being murdered for it.
According to whom? You can’t just redefine legal terms to suit your argument. This has nothing to do with freedom of speech, again this is just a strawman argument.
You are already legally protected from being murdered for what you say, last time I checked murder is still illegal.
Any sympathy for the murderer undermines free speech and democratic society
First of all…who was expressing sympathy for the murderer? Understanding someone’s motive isn’t the same as being sympathetic towards something. The CIA has reported that 9/11 was the result of political blowback from our previous involvement in Afghanistan. By your logic the CIA is sympathetic towards the terrorist responsible for 9/11?
Secondly, you don’t get to dictate what people get to feel or talk about. Especially while hypocritically accusing people of undermining the freedom of speech for their beliefs or statements.
Lastly you have no fucking clue what the freedom of speech clause of Constitution actually means, because as I have previously stated… you are a moron.
This is not complicated…
I’m pretty sure tying shoe laces is complicated for you, this has obviously gone over your head.
Seems like a lot of victim blaming in here. It can be very simple. Don’t murder people you disagree with.
Moralizing once again, no one here advocated for murdering anyone.
Also, free speech needs to be protected culturally as well, and not just through the government.
The idea of freedom speech is a constitutional right, it’s not a social mores. This has nothing to do with freedom of speech, you are just trying to erect a strawman argument.
doesn’t need to be a discussion about understanding motives at all. It’s wrong and needs to be condemned, full stop.
Lol, kinda ironic someone who is whining about free speech is trying to get people to stop talking about someone’s motive. We can discuss whatever we want, if you don’t like it you can leave. Hypocrite.
Otherwise you don’t have a free country. You can’t hand wave it away or shrug just because you understand their motive.
Lol, free speech means stop talking about something I don’t like because of freedoms…You are a moron.
a massive false equivalence comparing what Israel has done against the murder of two individuals.
People aren’t trying to equivocate the two, that would be insulting, not only to the people who were murdered, but to the tens of thousands of people being killed in Palestine.
The guy that got murdered isn’t Israel. He’s a person with opinions, right or wrong. He got murdered for a few tweets and an affiliation with Israel.
I mean he’s a representative of the state, which is why this is a politically motivated murder.
He’s not a combatant, but a civilian. Same for his wife. People justifying these murders are flat out wrong
Explanations aren’t justifications, just because people understand and even agree with the motivations of the killer doesn’t mean the agree with how he acted upon them.
I find the cries for the sanctity of protecting civilians to be pretty meek considering the state these civilians represent have overwhelmingly killed more civilians than armed combatants.
This is the inherent problem with a state targeting civilian populations, it provokes violence upon your own civilians.
In order to have a system where free speech is protected, you can’t allow people to be murdered for their views.
Another person misunderstanding the Constitution…Free speech doesn’t protect you from the public’s reaction to your speech, it guarantees protection from the government targeting you for your speech.
This isn’t an example of someone’s free speech being violated. An actual example would be students being arrested for their protest about Israels actions in Gaza.
There is no defending these murders or trying to justify them.
Again, understanding a motive isn’t justifying. No one said they agreed that those people deserved to be murdered , you’re just moralizing.
It’s illogical to compare them from a moral perspective.
The only person doing that is you… Everyone else is trying to point out that the two events are logically connected.
You don’t get to just shoot people because they have a different perspective than you, because they were raised differently or get their news from different places than you do.
Lol, I don’t think his motivations were centered around where people get their news. There is a genocide happening in Palestine, it’s not really a matter of perspective or debate. Violence begets violence, no one is claiming that’s a good thing, it’s just inescapable blowback.
It’s not exactly whataboutism though, it’s more of a false equivalence.
No one is equivocating the two. People are just acknowledging that political violence against those who represent a state is to be expected when a state conducts a genocide.
you think he is, then you are blinded by ideology and shouldn’t be allowed to participate in democratic society.
Lol, I’ve started my statement claiming I didn’t think people deserved to be murdered. You keep trying to connect my statements to moral grandstanding because you don’t have any other kind of rebuttal.
I don’t think I would really consider it a grossly exaggerated claim, more of just a misinterpretation of a report.
“For now let me just say that we know for a fact that there are babies who are in urgent life-saving need of these supplements that need to come in because their mothers are unable to feed themselves.”
“And if they do not get those, they will be in mortal danger,” he said.
I definitely wouldn’t claim that it was a claim based on antisemitism as Weissbrod is accusing. It’s a fact that the Israeli state is starving tens of thousands of people for no justifiable reason. I don’t think a misinterpretation of the timeline is really enough to claim someone is participating in blood libel.
I mean, I don’t think you get to decide what the scope of the context is.
For this not to be contextual you would have to claim that the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians had nothing to do with the gunman’s motive. I think that would be hard to claim considering that the murders were politically motivated, considering that the two victims were diplomats.
I think people have gotten a little too comfortable with claiming anything that shares a sentence structure with a logical fallacy to be a logical fallacy. You have to remember that logical fallacies have to be illogical in the first place. It’s not illogical to assume these two claims are associated.
Whataboutism have to equivocate two different scenarios that aren’t logically associated with the events in the originating claim.
I mean context is always important. Pretty sure any murder investigation goes into the motivation of the person who killed the victims.
I think it’s important to dispel the notion that the occupation of a neighboring country is somehow an act of protection, when it’s pretty obvious that it’s sparked a lot of provocation.
I mean also…
“In his final post on social media hours before the attack, Lischinsky had shared a post from the Israeli ambassador, Amir Weissbrod, accusing UN officials of engaging in “blood libel” over claims that 14,000 children faced starvation in Gaza.”
Not saying they deserved any violence, but even once moderate Israelis have been driven pretty far right in the last couple years. Accusations of blood libel while the state is actively starving children doesn’t exactly seem to be promoting any positive dialogue.
Gotta feed your hounds if you want to sic your attack dogs on someone. At this point there is going to be some sort of judicial or legislative confrontation whether it be meek or consequential. Midterms will be here sooner or later and he needs his constituents to feel like they are being attacked, he needs to feel like they need him to defend their ways of life.
Putain has zero intention of ending this without the full and complete subjugation of Ukraine.
Even if Russia subjugated the entirety of Ukraine, they still couldn’t afford to stop. They’ve completely transitioned to a war time economy and have isolated all foreign capital.
If Putin decides to end the campaign in Ukraine, it would just mean that they’re about to invade somewhere like Slovenia. They’re economy couldn’t handle the transition into a regular economy without imploding.
Because the playbook to destroy democracies has already been written. You don’t destroy a democratic nation by attacking it, you destroy it by getting it to attack itself.
Fascist know that if they can just turn the majority against a specific minority, then they have a foot in the door. You can’t uninvite the vampire from your home, once you let them have their way with the minority, the rules have changed, and those rules will eventually be changed for everyone.
If you protect the neediest minority group that protection extends to everyone. If we ignore that need, then it’s only a matter of time before everyone needs that protection.
I’m not saying that we shouldn’t have workers rights parades. I’m saying that gay rights and trans rights are workers rights parades, because they are our fellow workers. I think a lot of modern leftist groups think of minority rights as vestigial or as a distraction. When in reality every trans rights parade should be protected by a sea of factory workers willing to stomp on some fascist for attacking the solidarity or the working class.