I asked because I didn't know of anything that backs up either of those claims. I still haven't seen anything that does.

The UN report you asked for and that I kindly, without thanks, provided, does so, as I have explained.

In non-authoritarian contexts

What on earth are you talking about

it's actually pretty normal to ask "Why are you saying this, what is the evidence," instead of just accepting a browbeating message as, in itself, proof of what's being claimed.

Cool well I am not the person who originally said anything about this and you have been provided with evidence that you are now more or less ignoring and dismissing out of hand.

And usually, if someone's asked for proof and then their proof doesn't match the thing claimed when you examine it, or they're hostile to the idea of needing to provide proof in the first place because that's "sealioning" or whatever, that's a huge red flag.

It does match the claim, you are just not engaging in good faith with what was presented. You have literally not responded at all to my contextualization and are now grandstanding instead. Is that a red flag? And again, I am not the original person you were talking to. Not only have I not been hostile to "providing proof", I went out of my way to provide what was being referenced.

Likewise it is a red flag if someone makes a claim, and then when asked for evidence they pivot instead into a whole bunch of new claims.

At no point have I pivoted. I have provided you with context you help you understand something that is clearly new to you, however.

It doesn't look like you or the other speaker are interested in backing up this stuff.

I provided the document, explained its relevance, and provided context you help you understand where the genocide narrative is coming from and how unserious it is. I also offered some possible context for what OP was referring to by people getting rich.

You are now avoiding responding to what I said. If you cannot critically engage with this topic, you do not need to take it out on me with these silly accusations.

I don't want to play the Gish Gallop game of indefinitely checking out all these new claims

There is no Gish Gallop, this is just a topic you don't know anything about and I have provided you with several facts. This is not a debate.

I really did read the report. I don't know all that much about Xinjiang, so it was informative for me to see it, so thank you. I didn't see a strong indication, one way or another, that what's happening either is or isn't a genocide.

It is not the destruction of a people in whole or in part as described by the UN definition, which is obvious by simply comparing it to the report. There are not mass graves, there is no forced migration, children are not stolen, there is no substantial diaspora. There is nothing to the narrative. The onus of proof is actually on those making these claims. I have described, in general terms, where they come from, who makes them. Can you tell me the names od the organization(s)? What were they doing before 2018 or so? Do you know why you are even entertaining this possibility in the first place? Where is your evidence? The UN OHCHR didn't claim genocide.

It's definitely not on the same scale as Gaza or Nazi Germany, but it still does sound to me like they're aiming to eradicate the culture of these people and replace it Chinese culture, alongside a lot of other human rights abuses.

Xinjiang is Chinese. China is a multi-ethnic state. Uyghurs in China are not more or less Chinese than any other citizen in China and it would actually be racist to say otherwise.

The OHCHR report also does not claim that China is trying to eradicate their culture. Where do you get that idea from?

The forced sterilization

It is important to critically interrogate this claim. What did the OHCHR report provide as evidence? What are they specifically referring to as sterilization?

and wide-scale destruction of mosques,

This did not happen and the OHCHR repory does not make this claim. Take note of the limited examples provided and follow the rabbit hole of sourcing. It will be revealing.

in particular, sounds exactly like eradication.

That is why the accusers use language like "forced sterilization" to describe the insertion of IUDs and play with implications based on tortured per capita statistics that are far less scary than presented. If you don't investigate, all you walk away with is the bad words and no sense of scale or impact.

Okay, so you're not sure whether the report you sent me was accurate. You're just interested in using it to back up something that it doesn't actually back up, but at the same time throwing shade at any part of it that says something you don't want to hear.

You are confused. I have merely supplied you with what you asked for. Don't ascribe things to me that I haven't said.

That fact that it doesn't use the word "genocide" is not, to me, a specific finding that there is not a genocide.

You can of course use your brain to compare what is claimed to what genocide is. I have already explained this.

They seem like they're just focused on what the facts of the matter are, instead of the question of whether it fits into some specific value judgement or not.

On the contrary, this report was created at the behest of those accusing China of genocide and this is what they were then provided with.

I'm done here. I was just curious, that's all. Have a good day.

Your responses are combative, not curious. They are about doubting and fighting, often against things I have not said, and you are not asking questions and then accepting or building on the answers. This is despite you admittingly knowing little about this topic, whereas I clearly feel comfortable speaking about it purely rrom memory because I have actually done the work, done the curious thing.

You can do that, too, but it looks like you will need to stop treating this like some kind of debate to the death first.