I did not say the AP said that. What I mean is that that was general commentary from people about what's going on in Xinjiang, based on all the reporting.
It was (and I argue, still is) quite common for people to call someone a "genocide denier" simply for saying "what happens in Xinjiang is bad but it's not genocide / it lacks evidence". For example: https://twitter.com/redditiosymboli/status/13875617117339361...
Then that's a nice rhetorical trick, but dishonest.
A direct quote from you:
The fact that AP backpedaled like this shows how shaky all the evidence was.
You're comparing your impression of a bunch of poor quality news with an article by the AP and calling it backpedaling. The AP did not backpedal, because it never said that Xinjiang was worse than the Holocaust.
Further, things can change with time... that AP article is saying that things used to be much worse.
Okay take a look at this then: https://apnews.com/article/ap-top-news-international-news-we...
"It’s genocide, full stop [..] These are direct means of genetically reducing the Uighur population" (whose populations have grown are are now apparently showing up more often on the streets again)
In any case, your focus on whether AP specifically said or didn't say something misses the bigger picture. The real world isn't a high school debate in which only strict debating rules are important.
What's happening here is that the US government and the military industrial complex are manufacturing consent for a war against China, and the media is ignorantly taking the claims at face value and giving the messages a platform. Sure, the media may not always literally make the same claims word for word, but the point is that all these insinuations and mood-making still instil ideas in people's minds. That's why on the one hand "State Department Lawyers Concluded Insufficient Evidence to Prove Genocide in China" [1] while on the other hand we have people like shell0x proclaiming that China is the second coming of Nazi Germany.
Have enough people with such a sentiment, and the sentiment becomes truth even if nobody explicitly said it. That's why Dutch parliament members said in parliament debates that "1 million Uyghurs are imprisoned" (not "up to"; exactly 1 million, or even more), even though "reputable" media such as AP only ever said "up to 1 million". Dutch parliament members even said "Amnesty International confirms that there's a genocide", but if you go to Amnesty International's website then the website says "there's not enough evidence for a genocide".
The public and even politicians are being psychologically manipulated to accept a war against China. In the mean time, even though accusations of "genocide denial" don't come from the mainstream media, having enough people say something like that will deter other people from speaking out against the genocide narrative out of fear for being socially ostracized. For a while I feared speaking up for this exact reason. Aren't we supposed to be a free society in which we can question things?
Also in the mean time, actual Uyghurs who wanted to speak out against the genocide narrative are being banned from social media platforms simply for not abiding to that narrative. [2]
And I'm sure I don't need to remind you how devastating a war against China would be for the entire planet.
I’m not on the opposite side of a debate with you, and I don’t care about “high school debate rules.” If you’re right then you don’t need to lie or mislead and use little tricks like the one I pointed out. Just make your point without them - people here are happy to hear your perspective, and will be more likely to hear what you’re saying without all your embellishments.
All right. I don't believe I am "lying" or being dishonest, but point taken.
I suppose the difference between us is that you care a lot less about this topic and thus aren't constantly bombarded with extreme claims and things such as being called a genocide denier, while for me the topic directly affects the lives of my family.
