"Killing people" is not required for committing a genocide:

Article II of the Genocide Convention contains a narrow definition of the crime of genocide, which includes two main elements:

1. A mental element: the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such"; and

2. A physical element, which includes the following five acts, enumerated exhaustively:

2.1 Killing members of the group

2.2 Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group

2.3 Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part

2.4 Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group

2.5 Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

[0] https://www.un.org/en/genocide-prevention/definition

▲

nixon_why69 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Brother, I eat at a Uyghur restaurant in Wuhan pretty regularly. Nobody destroyed any groups.

There was a big overreaction that violated people's rights but the people still exist and are fine.

If we contrast with how the West have reacted to terror attacks, its quite rich to see them throwing UN definitions at China.

▲

defrost 33 minutes ago | parent [-]

> Brother, I eat at a Uyghur restaurant in Wuhan pretty regularly.

Honest question here;

is it a traditional Uyghur owned and managed restaurant freely frequented by local Uyghurs as a living expression of past and ongoing Uyghur culture, or

is it more a Disney "themed Uyghur restaurant" with the same relationship to Uyghur culture as Outback Steakhouse has to actual IRL Australian food and culture (ie three tenths of f-all).

	▲	nixon_why69 22 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		It's run by a family from there, they speak dialect among themselves which is very much not Wuhanhua. The food is only slightly xinjiang actually, its a stretch noodle shop with a couple of lamb dishes. But even if it were the latter.. even that would go against the narrative of total cultural hostility?