I got three points into a measured response, arguing the merits and deficits of your reply,

I assure you, the deficits you argued, whatever they were, were faulty or not completely thought out. You are not as brilliant as you think you are. I'm not claiming brilliance either, but what I've explained to you goes beyond me, to writers who have dedicated their lives to understanding imperialism, power structures, unequal exchange, world systems, and white supremacy. The only deficits you may have spotted were due to being incomplete because there is only so much scope that an internet comment can take on. Since you refused to engage with me due to a thought terminating cliche, I would encourage you to take it up with them, simply by reading the things that have advanced leftism, even if you do not initially or ever agree. If you want to understand imperialism, agree or not, you must read Lenin. If you want to understand hegemony, you would do well to start with Gramsci. Though you don't have to agree, you will have a better understanding about how any conflict against the imperial core can never be a contest between equivalent forces. If you want to understand post-colonial theory and critical race theory (which you are in particular dire need I might add), you must read Fanon, though you don't have to agree. If you want to understand unequal exchange and how that has built the socioeconomic world circumstances we see to this day and how it has perpetuated imperialism and hegemony, you must read Edward Said. Your naive and immature (and I want to make clear that immaturity is not a crime, none of us weren't at one time immature in our understanding of justice and leftism, but yours is an immature) framework for what racism even is will grow and benefit regardless of whether you believe all the things he says that to those in the liberal-lemmitor milieu make him "sound like a Tankie." Even if you've been too inoculated by propaganda to recognize the truth behind the arguments being made, your comprehension will only have deepened. Worst case scenario is your root opinions remain unchanged, but at least you'll get to come back here and make arguments against us evil authoritarian tankies, arguments that are at least cogent, so you don't have to pretend everyone who has a differing opinion is a bot, the "you're just a bot" defense being the last resort of someone who has no other avenue aside from admission of ignorance on the topic and needs an excuse to shut down the conversation, like you did.

That's one of the big differences between and libs and "tankies." Libs will just call you a bot, "tankies" will tell you to read.

There is a sad irony here though, that I also want to address. It is ironic that what shut down your willingness to learn, what caused your mind (a mind I'm sure you would swear up and down is one dedicated to being open), to snap, close down, and clamp tight like some kind of steel overkill rodent trap against any further information or challenge to your beliefs, was the statement of a fact that there is a claimed genocide which is not happening. The irony is not in the fact you refuse to be educated on a topic that you clearly are not aware of, that's just unfortunate and typical. The irony is that by insisting that something so profoundly heinous, arguably the greatest atrocity that it is possible for humanity to commit against itself, is happening, when by all relevant accounts it is not happening, well it is you who are engaging in genocide denial. It is a soft form of genocide denial, but it still fits the phrase, horrific as it is. To call something a genocide when it is not trivializes the genocide that is.

Your next objection and it's a fair one would probably be "whose accounts are you calling 'relevant'?!" In answer, I would say first and foremost the people who are, according to the claim, the ones being supposedly genocided. There are many accounts of Uyghurs in Xinjiang who will tell you upfront that no genocide is being perpetrated against their families or their people. You might find some who will use that word for their (perhaps justified, or not) hatred of the camps they had to temporarily go to for education, but even they will be reluctant at best to say that their culture is being erased, and you will be hard pressed to find any, let alone masses, who have been killed or anyone who knows of such things happening - because they didn't.

Secondarily, for relevant accounts, I would say those parties with the greatest stake and the greatest moral interest in such a genocide, namely Muslims of other countries, including the leaders of countries denouncing and the few actively fighting the real genocide againt a Muslim-majority population. But no, all of those countries and Muslim investigators have concluded that no genocide is taking place. Because there isn't. Even the UN refuses to call anything there a genocide because it is an absurd claim, despite the fact it would still be more politically expedient to go along with the world hegemon and call it a genocide, they simply can't, opting to express their deference by using the less legally demanding of action, "crimes against humanity," still a shameful untruth, but telling in that even they couldn't do what you're doing and use the word that trivializes the real thing.

Finally, for a "relevant account," you could add your own if you actually went there. Which you can do. I don't actually expect you to go to Xinjiang yourself to confirm this of course, but the point remains that you absolutely can. If you have the financial and other typical means required to travel to another country for a visit, you can go there and literally talk to Uyghurs there, investigate the claims of genocide being perpetrated. Not only is it possible to do so, many have, including acquanintences I have spoken to, confirming everything I've said here, confirming what you yourself can discover if you're willing to look. Genocide though? It isn't happening. It is a political fabrication drummed up almost entirely by one individual (Christian fundamentalist Zenz) with a zealous hatred of the Chinese people. It's of course fashionable to say the hatred is for the CPC, the government, not the people, but that fashionable little get-of-sinophobia-free card falls apart when you consider the fact that close to 95% of the Chinese population, over a billion people, hold an entirely positive view of their government, (which is no surpise because unlike western "democracies," the people of China are represented and do have significant control over the actions of their government) a poll done by Harvard, not Chinese government polling, confirmed this in-the-90's percentage approval rating. There is no genocide in Xinjiang. When you tell people there is, you trivialize the real genocides, past and present. That is soft genocide denial. Do not be a genocide denier.

I don't say all this as some sort of "gotcha" but as something I think you owe it to yourself to really consider, as someone who ostensibly cares about justice and human well being over their own egoistic desire to be right. First ask yourself, is it a soft form of genocide denial (as I say that it is) to perpetuate the idea, the stance, the belief that a genocide is taking place when it is not? Think of it in the abstract, as if on some other world, a circumstance where it IS true that many are making a claim there for political reasons that there is a genocide, but are either lying or ignorant of the truth. Are they engaging in soft genocide denial, by minimizing the severity of real ones, What does this act of perpetuating a falsehood, but one as significant to a sapient species as genocide, do to change the likelihood of it happening again, or the severity of it were it to happen regardless? Maybe you think it makes no difference.

But when you answer that question for yourself, if you have concluded that making false claims about a genocide that isn't real is a serious, even heinous thing to do, then don't you think it is imperative that you find out if you are indeed doing just that? Don't you think it is your responsibility to dig into the truth of the matter to find out if indeed you have been perpetuating a myth so terrible as genocide denial? And what way can you go about that? Do frantically study it but stick to all the sources who are committed to the side that benefits from people of the world believing China to be a terrible authoritarian genocide-committing "bad guy"? Do you read all the western liberal rags who sold everyone on weapons of mass destruction in and subsequent need for war against Iraq? Do you listen to those sources who say that Libya is better off with open air slave markets than it was where every young person upon getting married was given a house for free by the government? Do you listen to those who have a vested interest in the west not falling further and further behind China economically, and need the world to turn against China's equal-trade policies and track record of debt forgiveness? They wouldn't have any need to smear China, no! (including the /s here just in case). Or do you dig into accounts from other Muslims who have investigated the situation, Muslims in the 3rd world who certainly would not benefit from a genocide of their sisters and brothers, but who likewise have no particular love for China? Do you consider the accounts of journalists who have a real track record for anti-imperialism? There aren't many of them in the west, because they are never rewarded for their work (usually the opposite) and are absolutely not allowed to rise in any journalist ranks, and some of them even end up like Gary Webb or worse. Do you consider what the people and journalists of the 3rd world have to say?
(continued in a reply because this is at limit)

The Uyghur genocide is an American fantasy. People like you who push it are directly hurting Uyghur interests as they struggled with real abuses which gets covered in mud when people like you keep pushing your atrocity propaganda. Also we have better and more democratic involvement than you. You really should study a topic before you speak so arrogantly on it.