User talk:PotterGarry

Your welcome to RationalWiki is lukewarm at best, PotterGarry. This observation is due to the nature of your initial edits. Pull up a goat and try not to make trouble. We realize it is possible that you do not understand the nature of the site or our objectives. Please see our guide for newcomers and our community standards to clarify things for you. If you're still interested in contributing, please see what our articles are intended to be.

Bongolian (talk) 05:41, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Stop with the genocide denialism and whataboutism please. And China isn't innocently "promoting intermarriage", you know their soldiers are raping Uyghur women right? You disgust me Plutocow (talk) 01:36, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Uzbeks raped Kartvelian and Crimea Muslims for being "apostates", Kyrgyz raped Uzbeks en mass it's practically an election tradition there. Tajik women religious nuts in Tajiks prisons are raped too but nobody calls it genocide but suddenly when China ALLEGEDLY does everything Tajikistan does albeit not nearly as harshly it's genocide? In fact in China it actually is legal for a Uyghur woman to refuse a sexual advance unlike special settler women required by law to submit to their assigned commandant that every woman from said ethnic group had to submit to fully. If its not genocide in the Fergana valley then it's not genocide in Xinjiang. Name ONE thing China does to Muslims that that a Muslim supermajority country has never done to their Muslims. I'mm waiting. You made a Nazi Germany comparison. Nazis didn't want any descendants of Jews around. China is not enforcing any kind of one-drop rule so you know that's not a fair comparison. And frankly I doubt the cries of "rape" from women who originally testified SPECIFICALLY that they weren't beaten or abused but then changed their tune as their stories weren't dramatic enough. Uyghurs aren't going anywhere they weren't going to go extinct in the 1960s and they won't go extinct in the 2020s. China could easily get rid of them but it hasn't so we shouldn't spread media that disincentivies China to keep the Uyghurs around. I cannto say the same about other minorities in Central Asia that ACTUALLY were in danger of extinction like the Pamiris that China saved their asses in the 90s from genocidal bandits of the mountains.--PotterGarry (talk) 01:43, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Nobody's defending Uzbekistan or Tajikistan so cut it out with your whataboutery. And yes, rape is a tool of genocide because it traumatizes victims and breaks up their family structures, and this is something that the ICC has ruled is the case. Hell, look at the Rohingya genocide as a comparison. There are still Jews around, does that mean the Holocaust never happened? Please stop with your denialism. Plutocow (talk) 01:49, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

There were not millions upon millions of openly Jewish Jews waltzing around Berlin and holding high posts in German government in 1944. Nazi Germany declared their intent to eliminate Jewish bloodlines. That was their stated goal. They didn't want to simply to turn Haredi Jews into Reform Jews, they wanted to wholly eliminate Jews. China just wants to turn rebelious Uyghurs into loyal Uyghurs. There are mass graves and crematoriums that Nazis used but China doesn't do that they just force reading state literature in ugly buildings like everyone else in Central Asia. Rational Wiki doesn't call what the Central Asian states do to their minorities genocide and in doing so sets a VERY high bar for genocide so sorry Uyghurs don't make the cut. Rape of Uyghur women is illegal in China and no Chinese group subordinate to the government has declared Uyghur women to be what the right hand possesses. US soldiers raped Iraqi women a lot but I don't see any article about Iraqi genocide either. Either we have about Kartevlian Muslim, Uzbek, and Pamiri genocides or stop crying "genocide" for the Uyghurs. There is no benefit to Uyghurs for Westerners to scream Uyghur genocide it just leads to deeper suspicion of Uyghurs by Chinese. The best way to help Uyghurs is to make it look like the separatists working in the West are disowned and show that Uyghurs are worthy of continued status as one of the 56 flowers (recognized ethnic groups). You have no fucking idea how painful derecognition as ethnic group as collective punishment for the treason of a few is until your people actually experiences it. I wonder if Enver Hoxha wasn't white if his policies would be called genocide, seeing as when whiter leaders do what China does it's never called genocide.--PotterGarry (talk) 02:01, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Liberals definitely tend to gloss over and excuse American crimes in a way they don't do for nations like the USSR and China. That being said, the double standard of liberals, and the genocides and crimes against humanity going on in Central Asia, are irrelevant to the case of the Uyghurs. This is pure whataboutism. Carthage (talk) 02:15, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Keep screaming whataboutism all you want it doesn't mean I'm wrong. And keep in mind the CIA origin of the term whataboutism to deflect from American crimes. China hasn't eliminated Uyghurs however they are the only thing standing in the way of the anihilation of the far more vulnerable Pamiris so if you oppose genocide you should recognize that China is better than the Uyghur separatists who make no secret of what they want to do to non-Uyghur Muslims of Xinjiang.--PotterGarry (talk) 02:19, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Colonialism is still colonialism. Cultural erasure is still cultural erasure. Forced labor is still forced labor. Sterilization is still sterilization. What China's doing to the Uyghurs is no different from what the West did to indigenous peoples in the Americas and Oceania. We say "whataboutism" because of relevance. There are areas where whataboutism doesn't apply, but here it's being used as an obvious way to excuse Chinese colonialism in East Turkestan. Carthage (talk) 02:22, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

(ec)You know it doesn't have to get to the level of mass execution to be considered genocide right? And us not having pages on the other examples isn't an argument; we don't have a page on Operation Searchlight either but that obviously doesn't mean we don't consider them a genocide. Write articles on the Uzbekistan and Tajikistan genocides if you wish (as long as you aren't using it as a vehicle to promote Uyghur genocide denialism), but whether or not those articles exist have nothing to do with whether we consider that a genocide. Pointing to race is another form of whataboutism; this wiki doesn't have a positive view of Hoxha and has long articles about genocides with white perpetrators like the Holocaust and Native American genocides. If "turn[ing] rebelious Uyghurs into loyal Uyghurs" forcibly destroys their cultural identity, then yes, that is cultural genocide, which is a form of genocide, and pointing to any other factors or incidents is pure denialism. Those are many of the same arguments used by other genocide denialists (e.g. "There are still Native Americans today! We didn't mass execute Native Americans! Why aren't you talking about Spain's harsh policies towards Native Americans? When Native Americans attack white people, nobody calls it genocide! The Native Americans were hostile to America, so they needed to be turned into civilized citizens!") Plutocow (talk) 02:25, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Except USA only mass sterilized first nations women (and black women to a lesser extent). China does not limit ANY of its rules to Uyghurs, it is an equal-opportunity enforcer: family planning policies apply to EVERYONE and the Uyghur birthrate is still higher than the Han birthrate. In China Han kids in rural areas go to residential school, just like Uyghur kids from rural areas: Uyghur kids in urban areas go to day school. Han people don't get a pass on going to prison for being religious nuts unless they're in Hong Kong where Uyghurs also get to be religious nuts. And it's not East Turkistan, it's Xinjiang. East Turkistan is a Soviet propaganda term used to promote the separatist movement in the Sino Soviet split. Do you even realize that you are regurgitating Soviet propaganda? US specifically targeted native american religions but China limits ALL religious expression. There are plently of examples of them restricting the Catholic church, protestant groups, house churches etc. But the US did not do to White Anglo Saxon Protestants what it did to First Nations. That is the difference.--PotterGarry (talk) 02:29, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Also the US did mass exterminate Native Americans, just look at the ads in newspapers advertising bounties for the scalp of any "red-blooded" native man woman or child inhabiting the black hills. I have NEVER seen a Chinese newspaper offer a bounty for the murder of any "blue blooded" Uyghur inhabiting Xinjiang and the Chinese government would NEVER do such a thing.--PotterGarry (talk) 02:31, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Everyone bitches about Uyghurs being forced to sing the Chinese anthem as if only China makes people sing the anthem. So I also challenge ANYONE to find an example of China forcing Uyghurs to sing any song that is flagrantly blasphemous to Islam that is anywhere near on par to the forcing of Tajik Muslims to sing that the sacred fire of Zoroaster is eternal, "we are the fire of Zoroaster". "we are the avestan year", etc--PotterGarry (talk) 02:44, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

All things in moderation

A case involving you has been raised at All things in moderation. Feel free to comment. Plutocow (talk) 18:14, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Please

Do not talk about this subject anymore. You're topic banned. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 00:38, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

That won't stop them because they're explicitly here in bad faith. Carthage (talk) 00:45, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

No I am in good faith I've made good edits supported by citation. I make a claim of fact, I give citation. I say Sino-Soviet split happened, there's a wikipedia article about it. I claim that Soviet propaganda was full of hyperbole about China, I cite Soviet magazines and books where their predictions didn't come true. I note that it is theorized that the 3 wise men were Zoroastrian, I give citation. I note that many countries have beard restrictions, I give citation. I;m not letting us be made the next Uyghurs and I don't care what I have to do to demonstrate separation of grievances. Oh, and Adrian Zenz is a Jew-hater. Go whine that I "insulted" him. If you truly beleive the mental gymnastics that the Sino-Soviet split is a hoax then go nominate its wikipedia article for deletion. --PotterGarry (talk) 23:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Tankie?

How am I a tankie AND a hereditary traitor? Why don't you say that in front of actual tankies? They will all tell you we are not capable of being tankies and they need to know that we are not disobeying them. You go tell them we are submissive and aren't resentful because of America but because of them. Now go tell VolkVulture that. I'll stop when THEY stop.--PotterGarry (talk) 22:59, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

You literally defended the massacre of uighurs in china and made rape and genocide apologia. Don't play dumb, you know what you're doing. Rational Dude (talk) 10:45, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

"Massacre"? You guys literally admitted there were no mass killings. I'm not dumb and I know we'll never be a tankie no matter what we do. Tankie isn't just about beleifs but you have to have the right blood too. And since they are still permitted to live in Xinjiang, we cannot show Uyghurs any sympathy because it incentivizes gov to get arrogant and feel entitled to do whatever they want anyway since they will be critisized for treatment of them anyway even if they still are permitted existance. G-word must be used very, very, very sparingly. Crying about the Uyghurs here in the West does NOTHING but make it harder for ALL minorities, Uyghur and non-Uyghur so shitposting "muh Xinjiang" isn't helping anyone except DC. And go ahead and deny the Sino-Soviet split, if you think it's fake then go nominate the english wikipedia article for deletion, I'm sure that will be popular.--PotterGarry (talk) 13:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Who said there weren't mass killings? And you are dumb, and so are your extreme beliefs, which will NEVER be popular to people with brains and hearts.

Also, who's we? Rational Dude (talk) 13:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Even Adrian Jew-hater Zenz and the official rational wiki article say there are NO mass killings. Is rational wiki now a conspiracy theory according to rational wiki? Shall I quote the official Western-parroting article as it stands right now "the Uyghur persecution has not devolved into mass killings (yet)." You are literally contradicting your own article. If even the crazy overblown articles says there are no mass killings yet, then there are no mass killings yet. And we may only be honey from a barrel of tar (unlike Uyghur who when submissive are just honey not from barrel of tar), but we are committed to being the best honey from tar possible to be satisfactory and make them rethink their plans. And we will NOT let the "poor Uyghurs" crying to America for far less than we accepted to selfishly put our rehabilitation in jeopardy.--PotterGarry (talk) 13:35, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

No, we're not a conspiracy theory wiki. We just don't tolerate tankies like you and their bigotry. Rational Dude (talk) 13:40, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Let me get this straight...it's not conspriracy theory when rational wiki official articles says there's no mass killings, but it's conspiracy when I say the EXACT SAME THING? Just like when Muslim-supermajority Albania and Tajikistan go full beard ban it's not genocide but when China copies but does a less strict ban on just big beards (a little stubble is fine) it's somehow worse?--PotterGarry (talk) 13:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

You may enjpy parroting NED talking points so you can feel good about yourself "saving the Weegers" but guess what some of us have to answer collectively for such sins even if we have nothing to do with Xinjiang and we fucking won't let a couple yankie sinophobes get in the way of our rehabilitation at home. If a couple Uyghurs have to get haircuts big whoop we'll cry for them when/if China asks that good Uyghurs like Amet-khan call themselves Hui sto prevent people thinking good things about Uyghurs and then starts falsely labeling non-Uyghur traitors like the Dalai Lama as "Uyghur" and banning use of the word Uyghur in a non-degrading context. If you want to help the Uyghurs, write about the loyal good Uyghurs and their good work for China so that if China goes full Surgun they won't be able to deny that those people were Uyghur and therefore claim that there were never any good Uyghurs.--PotterGarry (talk) 13:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

“the loyal good Uyghurs and their good work for China” this is really bizarre phrasing. Making an argument that seems indistinguishable from “stop whining about possible cultural genocide, and instead focus on one of the good members of this minority group that served this great nation!” is not really helping your case here. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 20:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

"instead focus on one of the good members of this minority group that served this great nation!” is not bad, it's good, because it discourages hate crimes against Uyghurs by nationalists who are tempted to hate Uyghurs because those in the West disparage China. If China decides to go all Soviet Union on the Uyghurs and declares them a race of traitors because of the actions of the minority in the West, then it is very helpful to Uyghurs to archive examples of Uyghurs who the party held out as role models and celebrated to show that Uyghurs are not biologically predisposed to treason; if China were to make such declaration of Uyghurs to justify stripping them of hukou in Xinjiang and their passports, they will start pretending that there are no loyal Uyghurs and attempt to pretend that loyal Uyghurs were non-Uyghurs. USSR tried to whitewash Amet-khan as Dagestani (despite him never considering himself one), Uzeir Abduramanov as Azerbaijani (not even under a one-drop rule would he qualify as one), Refijan Suleymanov as Kazanstani, etc. So if China decides to do the unthinkable is would help the Uyghurs to write about the loyal ones because it will make it harder for China to label them as a nation collectively guilty of treason and bury the feats of loyal Uyghurs, and it REALLY doesn't help Uyghurs to try to pass off Kazakh and Uzbek and Hui anti-China folks as Uyghurs because it makes Uyghurs blamed for things that Uyghurs didn't do. Being labeled a nation collectively hereditary traitors is a very, very, very hard label to shed and we should do everything we can to prevent that label being applied to anyone else, and glorifying the minority of Uyghur separatists and pretending they represent all Uyghurs does nothing but hurt Uyghurs to the eyes of China. You think you are helping Uyghur but you are hurting them by downplaying Uyghur usefullness to China and painting them as a dangerous 5th column that needs to be controlled because of the actions of a few rogues in the West that regular Uyghurs have no control over but are being forced to accept the blame for their actions.--PotterGarry (talk) 01:33, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I asked a black friend what was the most racist thing said to him and he replied “you’re one of the good ones”. You are essentially defending that sort of racism. “Discourages hate crimes” is nonsense as it implies there are “the bad ones” and what do we do about them? Cultural assimilation to a dominant ethnic group is a form of racial supremacy. It doesn’t dismantle racial hierarchies it reinforces them by framing the dominant group as ideal. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 20:14, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

"You've one of the good ones" is WAYYY better than "We should have exterminated your kind when we had the chance because your people are nothing and have done nothing for us except be a 5th column". So we must do EVERYTHING we can to prevent that mentality from shifting to the latter.--PotterGarry (talk) 22:50, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

This is an extremely strange form of racism apologia to suggest that milder forms of racism can be used to prevent more extreme forms of racism. No, it can’t. Never in the history of any human society has moderate racism been used to combat more extreme or genocidal forms of racism. Racism has only ever escalated whenever it has been tolerated. It should never be tolerated. Anti-racism is only the only effective method of combating racism. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 23:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

It's just about the only damn thing that works in Crimea and you know damn well that telling the Chinese that there's no such thing as a good Uyghur darn well won't improve Chinese attitudes to Uyghurs.--PotterGarry (talk) 13:30, 17 July 2023 (UTC)