I'm trying to talk in good faith, but I don't have 10 hours to read about it. I've only researched about 1 or 2 hours. But I'm definitely not just taking your website at face value.

Right, so you didn't read my carrd and then linked a different source instead (super good faith) that I completely refuted (apparently you felt no need to respond to my complete rebuttal]. So you didn't read the comment or the response to your rebuttal, and yet you're saying you're acting in good faith because you don't have a lot of time/haven't done a lot of research? Whatever, then don't act like you're qualified to have an opinion.

But I'm definitely not just taking your website at face value.

What does this even mean? "Face value"? It's a collection of sources. Seriously, if you don't have the knowledge to even respond to my points, much less my complete refutation of your own points, don't ghost respond to me acting like I've said something crazy to get support in another thread. It's cowardly and pathetic.

Hey I'm glad to hear you point out the good faith stuff. I'm interacting with a few of your site buddies and I gotta say, there's a whole lot of bad faith stuff going on, so I'm sorta defensive. I've provided sources a few times now and just get mocked or called a propagandist for it. Not your fault though, so it is unfair to direct the frustration at you.

I don't expect you to read it all in one go - there's a lot of stuff. We don't have to continue the conversation right now, we can pick it up when you're ready. I will say that I am not the one who gathered those sources, so beyond doing so e fact-checking and investigation on my own on these claims, I am not the most well-educated on the subject. We have a news mega, which is a great place for these exact discussions, which I would highly recommend. I can try to answer any questions you might have, though I think users like @SeventyTwoTrillion@hexbear.net or @Alaskaball@hexbear.net would be much better for any question that isn't super basic. I'll do my best though, and I'm certain there's a lot I could learn. Again for any real in-depth discussion I'd recommend the news mega.

Edit: nevermind you're the asshole troll that couldnt read a single source given to you in that thread before. Fuck me for assuming good faith and fuck you

No, that isn’t a clarification. You’re not understanding that the birth rates in the rest of China were already much lower prior to the 10% decrease. The Uighur population has been growing even as the Han population has leveled out, because the Han already had lower birth rates for decades. The Uighur were exempted from the one child policy as well. So yeah, the rest decreased 10%, there was less room to decrease in the first place because birth rates were already very low!

I'm Chinese and literally grew up with Uyghurs downstairs in Hubei, they and the Hui family around the block were the only ones with more than 1 kid.

If you're referring to something Adrian Zenz said about 80% of new IUDs being sold in Xinjiang, he misread a decimal point 328,475 IUDs in Xinjiang out of 3,774,318. 8.7% of IUDs placed in China were in Xinjiang.

News quoted his 80% figure before he had to retract it, but it's already in the back of people's minds that China's forcibly sterilizing Uyghurs.