They don't ban anyone denying Palestinian genocide despite it having literally infinitely more evidence than Xinjiang where not even one single death is confirmable in a far larger land mass where nearly 100% of the population have smartphones.

The only thing you can take from that is that genocide denial is not the real reason this person was banned, but instead holding a position that is contrary to the lemmyworld worldnews modteam. They hold the position that Xinjiang's ""genocide"" is real and you're not allowed to deny it. They do not hold the position that Palestinian genocide is real, therefore denying it is 100% ok.

It's a US supremacist way of moderating. Denying the genocides that the US has labelled as genocides (even though it's officially backtracked on that) is not allowed. Denying the genocides that the US denies however is completely allowed. They probably aren't even self-aware that this is the way they're moderating, they just think it's normal, it's background american supremacism baked into their behaviour and normalised in their lifestyles. They probably haven't even ever thought about the contradiction.

Idk how they got it into their heads that claims of genocide get to bypass any and all scrutiny

they don't, it's just a cudgel they can use to attack people who don't believe the PRC is a grim dystopian hellscape ruled by a grinning dictator sitting on a throne of skulls

Whenever I dare look at the .world (and co) modlog, I know there's a decent chance I'll see one of your removed comments there. But every time that's the case, it's always an excellent, sensible comment, the deletion of which always a testament to the vacuous dipshittery and hypocrisy of the liberal lemmy instances. It's like always so clearly just that they can't argue against it without blatantly abandoning the pretense that they're any different than the maga conservatives or outright fascists they love to claim they oppose.

So anyway, your name and pfp are very appropriate. Thank you for your service of frequently wading through those brainworm-infested waters and spraying some dewormer around. It may seem like a drop in the bucket but I'm sure some of it gets through here and there.

The cognitive dissonance in these people must be intense, which genocide did that comment deny?

It would be worth mentioning in this argument that Holocaust denialism reflects having an agenda of rehabilitating the image of the Nazis, just like frivolously asserting the presence of a genocide (which white supremacists frequently do, as you allude to with the South Africa example) serves its own agenda, frequently an exterminationist one. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accusation_in_a_mirror

I don't think the Xinjiang genocide myth is being used for such a plainly exterminationist purpose like, for example, Israeli or Afrikaner claims about genocide are, but it still serves as an inflammatory causus belli against an other.

Yep. Libs never learn.

"And even then, it could hypothetically, maybe, possibly have potentially have happened, so we should hate the evil enemy with all our hearts anyway."

It doesn't. Much like "Everyone was against the invasion of Iraq".

math teacher-ass take

Sometimes that's right when you come to the right answer through the wrong conclusion, such as Candace Owen's and MTG opposing Israel based mostly in antisemitism and nationalism, but that generally doesn't describe communists.

if in 50 years

What a fuckin loser

They could find out TODAY, there are tons of reports, videos, they could contact people who live there RIGHT NOW

But nah, Imma wait 50 years instead so that I can be wrong about this 'critical issue for me' for longer

During the Second Red Scare which occurred in the United States in the years that immediately followed the end of World War II, the term "premature anti-fascist" came into currency and it was used to describe Americans who had strongly agitated or worked against fascism, such as Americans who had fought for the Republicans during the Spanish Civil War, before fascism was seen as a proximate and existential threat to the United States (which only occurred generally after the invasion of Poland by Nazi Germany and only occurred universally after the attack on Pearl Harbor). The implication was that such persons were either Communists or Communist sympathizers whose loyalty to the United States was suspect.