Muslims are forced to eat pork and drink alcohol as punishment in China's Islamic 're-education' cam

[M3t4tr0n]

I wish someone would punish me with alchohol

 

[Deleted member 196663]

It's okay for parents to brainwash their children, but not the state.

 

[DeJulez]

Don't be surprised when they mistaken downtown Beijing for an airport.

 

[ShinkanPo]

Don't be surprised when they mistaken downtown Beijing for an airport.

That would only mean more Muslims will eat pork.

 

[DeJulez]

That would only mean more Muslims will eat pork.

Yea cuz that'll scare them.
A nice meal and drink will detour them.

 

[Goonerview]

Interesting idea to ponder.

If a race/culture/people doesn't actually provide any value to you. Why should you be compelled to like them?

The freedom to discriminate, to like/dislike what you want. I think it's human nature.

People get called "racist" for not liking all cultures/races/peoples. Why can't people be free to like/dislike what they want without having to justify it?

 

[Hollywood Jack]

I mean sign ME up, but yeah, this shouldn't be forced on those with opposite beliefs. Authoritarianism sucks no matter what.

 

[ShinkanPo]

Yea cuz that'll scare them.
A nice meal and drink will detour them.

Oh really?

 

[Islam Imamate]

Not cool, China. But maybe Muslims should start to ask why their prophet decided to follow the Jewish custom of prohibiting pork.....

I'm not sure what you're trying to imply here but historians believe that the reason pork consumption became less common in the Middle East thousands of years ago, even before the Jews explicitly prohibited it, is that pork is an inefficient source of protein in terms of the amount of resources needed to raise a pig to maturity relative to the amount of protein it provides. Poultry is far more efficient because you can harvest eggs and in general you get more protein for the same amount of water and food resources you spend on it relative to a pig.

Actually China should consider reducing its pork consumption for that same reason. It used to be a rare luxury but its becoming increasingly common as China becomes more affluent but the increased demand comes with it the increased drain on water and food resources.

Leave China to do what China wants within china's borders.
This isn't the 1800s, the west is not in a position to be wrecking their country and dictating the dispensation of justice there.

I haven't seen a single poster call for some invasion of China to correct this. The US hasn't even threatened Myanmar with it despite the fact they're clearly on a campaign of ethnic cleansing.

There's a bit of distance between invasion and doing nothing though. At the very least we should criticize them and perhaps even consider sanctions. We won't because their economy is just to large to marginalize but that doesn't mean we should turn a blind eye.

Interesting idea to ponder.

If a race/culture/people doesn't actually provide any value to you. Why should you be compelled to like them?

The freedom to discriminate, to like/dislike what you want. I think it's human nature.

People get called "racist" for not liking all cultures/races/peoples. Why can't people be free to like/dislike what they want without having to justify it?

This isn't about liking or disliking Muslims, its about forcing them into reeducation camps for the purpose of social engineering. If you don't like Muslims then don't like them on your own time but that's not even close to a justification for this level of authoritarianism. To boil it down the way you have is to be rather obtuse.

 

[Bloodworth]

Devout Muslims.

Seems like a good litmus test on who to trust and who you want in your country.

 

[PrinceOfPain]

I'm not sure what you're trying to imply here but historians believe that the reason pork consumption became less common in the Middle East thousands of years ago, even before the Jews explicitly prohibited it, is that pork is an inefficient source of protein in terms of the amount of resources needed to raise a pig to maturity relative to the amount of protein it provides. Poultry is far more efficient because you can harvest eggs and in general you get more protein for the same amount of water and food resources you spend on it relative to a pig.

Actually China should consider reducing its pork consumption for that same reason. It used to be a rare luxury but its becoming increasingly common as China becomes more affluent but the increased demand comes with it the increased drain on water and food resources.

I haven't seen a single poster call for some invasion of China to correct this. The US hasn't even threatened Myanmar with it despite the fact they're clearly on a campaign of ethnic cleansing.

There's a bit of distance between invasion and doing nothing though. At the very least we should criticize them and perhaps even consider sanctions. We won't because their economy is just to large to marginalize but that doesn't mean we should turn a blind eye.

This isn't about liking or disliking Muslims, its about forcing them into reeducation camps for the purpose of social engineering. If you don't like Muslims then don't like them on your own time but that's not even close to a justification for this level of authoritarianism. To boil it down the way you have is to be rather obtuse.

Yeah, invasion would be a ridiculous proposition, and I did not suggest it. Invasion is not the only way to force influence over the internal affairs of foreign nations. It wasn't back then and it certainly isn't now.

And when the western press starts using phrases like "cultural cleansing" and "final solution" to describe the policies of a strategic rival, I don't think there is much harm in jumping the gun on suggesting that the west let it slide.

What would sanctions even be intended to achieve? Or would they just be an investment in slightly more tense future relations?
Want to do something? Lay covert channels for the smuggling of at-risk Muslims out of the country.

But publicly? Yes, turn a blind eye.
Don't try to influence their policy and don't use things like this as an excuse to apply political or economic pressure.

The south china sea is where the west can try and prove that it's still able to draw a line, this is an internal matter.

 

[salamander]

Interesting idea to ponder.

If a race/culture/people doesn't actually provide any value to you. Why should you be compelled to like them?

The freedom to discriminate, to like/dislike what you want. I think it's human nature.

People get called "racist" for not liking all cultures/races/peoples. Why can't people be free to like/dislike what they want without having to justify it?

If you were strong enough in your belief system then why would there be even a question of justifying anything to anyone, be it a die hard racist, or a Christian, a muslim or a tranny that thinks he's a a chick?

Do what you want, and be content to live with the consequences of the effect it has on people.

Anything else is either whining or narcissim.

So you're good dude, hate your ass off.

 

[Goonerview]

If you were strong enough in your belief system then why would there be even a question of justifying anything to anyone, be it a die hard racist, or a Christian, a muslim or a tranny that thinks he's a a chick?

Do what you want, and be content to live with the consequences of the effect it has on people.

Anything else is either whining or narcissim.

So you're good dude, hate your ass off.

The media are the ones guilting, shaming and compelling people to like all races/cultures etc. even ones that don't even provide any value.

I'm not whining. I'm just openly pondering ideas.

I believe in the freedom to discriminate. To like/dislike what you want.

If you don't like black people "you're racist!"

If you don't like Muslims, "you're islamaphobic"

I ask, why can't people just be free to like/dislike what they want?

If you have to force people to like you, doesn't make you seem very desirable or good.

If people don't like me, for whatever reason, I'm like "ok, cool, good luck".

 

[Islam Imamate]

Yeah, invasion would be a ridiculous proposition, and I did not suggest it. Invasion is not the only way to force influence over the internal affairs of foreign nations. It wasn't back then and it certainly isn't now.

And when the western press starts using phrases like "cultural cleansing" and "final solution" to describe the policies of a strategic rival, I don't think there is much harm in jumping the gun on suggesting that the west let it slide.

What would sanctions even be intended to achieve? Or would they just be an investment in slightly more tense future relations?
Want to do something? Lay covert channels for the smuggling of at-risk Muslims out of the country.

But publicly? Yes, turn a blind eye.
Don't try to influence their policy and don't use things like this as an excuse to apply political or economic pressure.

The south china sea is where the west can try and prove that it's still able to draw a line, this is an internal matter.

I can't agree to that. Its fair to take the criticism between rival powers with a grain of salt but that doesn't mean those criticisms are necessarily invalid. I don't really care that its a domestic matter, we live in an international and globalized world and we should attempt to hold one another to certain standards even if its only through rhetoric. Of course that goes both ways and America is far from perfect and worthy of criticism on certain domestic matters and I'm open to that even from cynical actors who might have an ulterior motive so long as the criticism can stand on its own.

 

[PrinceOfPain]

I can't agree to that. Its fair to take the criticism between rival powers with a grain of salt but that doesn't mean those criticisms are necessarily invalid. I don't really care that its a domestic matter, we live in an international and globalized world and we should attempt to hold one another to certain standards even if its only through rhetoric. Of course that goes both ways and America is far from perfect and worthy of criticism on certain domestic matters and I'm open to that even from cynical actors who might have an ulterior motive so long as the criticism can stand on its own.

I think those criticisms are invalid.

The US has itself undermined the international rule of law and the idea of holding each other to certain standards to such an extent that cynical actors are somewhat empowered to either thumb their noses at the recitation of such, or justifiably interpret as a threat any action taken to enforce them.

You can't wag your finger judgementally with one hand while facilitating human rights atrocities with the other.
It simply makes you look like you have an agenda, rather than giving a damn. When the criticism cannoyvbe trusted, it invalidates the criticism.

Again, if you want to establish a respect for standards, dial it back and start in international waters.
Publicly judge what's happening inside the borders after that much has at least been settled.

 

[salamander]

The media are the ones guilting, shaming and compelling people to like all races/cultures etc. even ones that don't even provide any value.

I'm not whining. I'm just openly pondering ideas.

I believe in the freedom to discriminate. To like/dislike what you want.

If you don't like black people "you're racist!"

If you don't like Muslims, "you're islamaphobic"

I ask, why can't people just be free to like/dislike what they want?

If you have to force people to like you, doesn't make you seem very desirable or good.

If people don't like me, for whatever reason, I'm like "ok, cool, good luck".

Because life isn't fair,and no one ever really gets everything they want all the time because they generally aren''t even satisfied with having what they need.

You're lamenting the fact that no refuge can be taken in the media. The media isn't a preisthood, or an ideal. It's just a tool. And these days it's used cynically for money making. There's also the various forms of fuckery in how it sways opinions, fosters moods and shapes narratives.

So the only other recourse is to take refuge in your own damn self. You wanna hate people? Then hate people.

Be the best damn hater you can be. Just be strong enough in your convictions to own the consequences when they come.

I mean your main gripe seems to be that there is no such thing as a consequence-free existence. That your freedom, one among the screaming billions, somehow has a priority over other types of freedom for other types of people.

You need power for that, bro. It takes power to make yourself more free than someone else.

 

[skaleton]

The media are the ones guilting, shaming and compelling people to like all races/cultures etc. even ones that don't even provide any value.

I'm not whining. I'm just openly pondering ideas.

I believe in the freedom to discriminate. To like/dislike what you want.

If you don't like black people "you're racist!"

If you don't like Muslims, "you're islamaphobic"

I ask, why can't people just be free to like/dislike what they want?

If you have to force people to like you, doesn't make you seem very desirable or good.

If people don't like me, for whatever reason, I'm like "ok, cool, good luck".

If you don’t like Muslims we have a word for that, islamaphobic.

If you don’t like black people we have a word for that, racist.

Who is stopping you from liking/disliking whatever you want? They’re just aligning your principles with previously defined words. It sounds like you’re whining that youre being shamed by the media. As you said everyone is free to not like you too. If you want we can call it being goonerist. Then you can at least accuse everybody of being goonerists. Does that help?

 

[salamander]

goonerist.

"Dude man, that was fucking goonerist!" *smh*


I'm not sure if i'm ever gonna stop laughing.

Best wake n bake of the month. Cheers!

 

[Islam Imamate]

I think those criticisms are invalid.

The US has itself undermined the international rule of law and the idea of holding each other to certain standards to such an extent that cynical actors are somewhat empowered to either thumb their noses at the recitation of such, or justifiably interpret as a threat any action taken to enforce them.

You can't wag your finger judgementally with one hand while facilitating human rights atrocities with the other.
It simply makes you look like you have an agenda, rather than giving a damn. When the criticism cannoyvbe trusted, it invalidates the criticism.

Again, if you want to establish a respect for standards, dial it back and start in international waters.
Publicly judge what's happening inside the borders after that much has at least been settled.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. American moral authority has been undermined for good reason, I'll concede that, but I don't accept that this means Americans have to be quiet when we witness atrocities in other countries. Personally, I don't want to live in a world where everyone cloisters themselves to their own countries and turns a blind eye to oppression elsewhere. That includes other nations. I'm not trying to argue America has a unique responsibility to call out this kind of thing or something about it, we should all be outraged at it regardless of where we're from.

This stance of yours strikes me as not entirely different from the usually satirized "Different culture, hard to judge" statement. Would you refrain from criticizing Saudi Arabia because South Africa has its own skeletons in its closet? I would hope not, the Saudis deserve criticism from every corner of the globe.

 

[Goonerview]

Because life isn't fair,and no one ever really gets everything they want all the time because they generally aren''t even satisfied with having what they need.

You're lamenting the fact that no refuge can be taken in the media. The media isn't a preisthood, or an ideal. It's just a tool. And these days it's used cynically for money making. There's also the various forms of fuckery in how it sways opinions, fosters moods and shapes narratives.

So the only other recourse is to take refuge in your own damn self. You wanna hate people? Then hate people.

Be the best damn hater you can be. Just be strong enough in your convictions to own the consequences when they come.

I mean your main gripe seems to be that there is no such thing as a consequence-free existence. That your freedom, one among the screaming billions, somehow has a priority over other types of freedom for other types of people.

You need power for that, bro. It takes power to make yourself more free than someone else.

"like isn't fair" ... is that an argument?

I just think we should be free to like and dislike what we want.

I don't spend my free time hating people, but I don't have to like people, either.

Consequences, like what? How exactly is my freedom to like/dislike something "having priority" over someone else?