[Maakuth]

I suppose it would be helpful if you provided some grounds on why you do not trust this foundation. There are other messages in this discussion showing distrust in the foundation and Dr. Zenz, but none provide background for that.

[4ggr0]

I know that I am part of a minority when saying this, and to give some context, I live in a Social Democracy and do like it as it is.

Now, why I don't like this foundation. First off, every bad thing happening in communist countries seems to be attributed to the concept of communism itself, and not to the fact that these countries are ruled by dictators. They also state "we tell the truth about communism because our vision is for a world free from the false hope of communism"

If shit happens in our capitalist countries, this rarely gets blamed on capitalism as a whole, and even if, it's not taken seriously by many. I've never seen someone blame capitalism for what happened at Guantanamo Bay, as an example.

"a world free from [...] communism". It seems like this foundation is part of a majority who doesn't actually educate themselves about communism. As someone who has read what Marx, Engels any many others came up with, I can just shake my head if I read what is written on this foundations website. The big issue with communism is that dictators use this system to enrich themselves, BUT, communism should be a system where the proletariat rules, not a single person.

If anyone would create a "Victims of Capitalism Memorial Foundation", the west would instantly laugh it off and deny such criticism. But as we have seemed to conclude that commies are the bad guys, everyone is fine with people blaming absolutely everything on Communism.

And now to end, no, I am not communist. I live in one of the richest, capitalist countries, in a social democracy. I just don't like it when Communism is being blamed in such weird ways and it especially pisses me off if such things come from the US - a country where news talking heads frequently trash Socialism/Communism as a boogeyman, even if it makes zero sense. Add to that the atrocities that the US has caused in our world (Y'all also do tons of cool stuff, I'm not Anti-US, just objectively critical), atrocities which rarely get blamed on the whole country and instead on groups or even specific people, and I can't take such generalized criticism against whole systems seriously.

China does evil shit all the time as well. Surveillance, the stuff in Xinjang and more, just to also make clear that I am not a chinese puppet. But keep the criticism real.

This comment also gives more concrete criticism: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31489695

[smcl]

Comments which mention socialism or communism in a way that doesn't explicitly condemn it are often downvoted to oblivion on HN. I got it once because I mentioned that I thought Tito was an interesting guy. FWIW I'll vouch the comment if it gets made [dead]

[4ggr0]

Yes, but I notice this in real life as well. As soon as I dare to suppose that merely the theory of communism is not 100% evil, I get treated like a full-on communist defending that "Stalin killed 100 million people".

Can't even blame people that much, used to think the same. Then I read a couple of books, educated myself about different political ideologies and now I'm better able to talk about this topic rationally. I still think a communist state which truly works is very hard to achieve and not that necessary, even just when talking about having to convince people that we or they should try. But I took some 'marxist' principles to heart and base my political thinking around concepts like class conflict and economic/social equality, without feeling or describing myself as communist. I still vote for SocDems, I'm probably just a bit more "extreme" than their average voter.

[Jon_Lowtek]

I see that a lot with all kind of topics and call it "0/1 partisanship" for lack of a better word. I think it's related strongly to in-group/out-group thinking, friend or foe. You are either with us, or against us, but in a radical way: either you agree with everything, or you are the enemy. There is no middle ground, no grey area, no 23% or 42% or 69% only 0 and 1. People lack the ability to differentiate, to have a discussion about the finer detail. Maybe it's the education system not training discourse culture, but i think it is mostly because they don't actually care about the topic, only about the social aspect of being on the same side of a topic.

[MockObject]

While it may be true that the criticisms of the Bolsheviks leveled by Kautsky may point to a disapproval of Leninism by Marx and Engels, nevertheless, no non-Leninist socialist revolution has ever occurred, and so the charge of brutal dictatorship is valid and legitimate in historical practice.

[GameOfFrowns]

What would you even consider credible criticism?

[0]Zenz is a born-again christian zealot who imagines himself to be on a mission against Satan (or in this case China) and who build his whole career on "uncovering" Chinese atrocities and aligning himself with questionable orgs like the Muslim Brotherhood.

In our current economy where attention is currency, he has to come up with ever more outrageous material. Now that 100% of reporting about these camps and the "Uyghur genocide" comes from one single source, namely Adrian Zenz, this makes at least me skeptical outright. His anti-China activism is so clearly in line with US interests and CIA activities that it's no surprise he gets a lot of praise from establishment media.

That is why my original comment said that Uyghur activists should avoid Zenz, since that man has all the motivation to fabricate evidence to further his personal (lucrative) crusade.

If he's genuine, that's a pity, but a this point he is unfortunately "burned" and a detriment to Uyghur activism.

[0]https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-german-data-diver-who-expos...

[Maakuth]

This is the sort of background I asked for. Admittedly I've not followed the topic closely, but this is the first time I hear about this sort of connection with Uyghyr activism.

At least in this case the reporting seems to be based on verified information and journalists working independently of Dr. Zenz.

[sgift]

I cannot read the full WSJ article and the teaser doesn't support your statement that he's on a "mission against China", only that "I feel very clearly led by God to do this". Since the teaser doesn't make it clear that 'this' refers to a "mission against China" I'd say it could also refer to uncovering the truth.

Everything else you wrote is basically conspiracy 101: "His anti-China activism is so clearly in line with US interests and CIA activities that it's no surprise he gets a lot of praise from establishment media." ... cause obviously, when someone critizes China it must be a campaign by the shadow cabal of CIA.

> If he's genuine, that's a pity, but a this point he is unfortunately "burned" and a detriment to Uyghur activism.

Burned by whom and for what? All I've read so far are accusations, no proof, not even a shred of evidence of wrongdoing. That someone is highly critical of something doesn't "burn" them in any way. If you have proof that he fabricated evidence feel free to share it.

[throwaway4good]

They are untrustworthy because they are driven by strong anti-communist ideology.

[Jon_Lowtek]

It's a false believe that only those who declare neutrality can tell the truth and everything said by anyone with an agenda must be a lie made to further their goals. On the contrary those who strive for/against something have the energy required to uncover truth, to tell it again and again even when facing opposition.

Yes we want neutral journalism, but that means to look at all sides and verify the facts, it does not mean to completely disregard something because a source is not neutral. It does not mean to disregard facts because they align with some ideology.

We also want neutral judges, but when the accused says they did not do the crime, and accuser says they did, and the evidence says they did, the neutral judge should not disregard the evidence because it aligns with one side. That is not what neutrality means.

[ginko]

Surely being opposed to authoritarian single-party rule isn't enough to be considered untrustworthy.

[Out_of_Characte]

I dont consider myself anti communist. I'm just against every communist regime that has ever been created in the history of mankind. The concentration camps in china are real and brutal. One must take stance against immorality no matter the ideology. If that makes me anti-communist so be it

[4ggr0]

If these are the requirements to make you Anti-Communist I must ask - Would you be Anti-Capitalist and/or Anti-Democracy as well?

If not, why not? I think we can both find more than enough examples for evil things which were done in or because of capitalist democracies.

I would ask the same question if someone would label themselves as Anti-Capitalist. To understand why one would only be against a single of these systems/ideologies, while potentially being fine with or ignoring others.