Calling the comprehensive evidence of human rights abuses against Uighurs 'CIA propaganda' dismisses the work of:
Independent UN investigators who found credible allegations of crimes against humanity.
Respected international human rights organizations that conduct meticulous, on-the-ground investigations and collect survivor testimonies.
Academic scholars who publish peer-reviewed research.
Journalists from around the world who have risked their safety to document these realities.
These are not government intelligence agencies. Their findings are based on a volume and consistency of evidence that stands up to scrutiny, regardless of how inconvenient it may be to label it as such. The narrative of 'economic development' doesn't negate systematic human rights abuses.
So you're acknowledging that the actions in China against Uighurs also amount to genocidal?
I also mentioned multiple times the genocide in the comment you’re quoting, and you’re choosing to overfocus on the single time I didn’t.
I'm glad we're in agreement. It seemed you were trying to make a different point.
Given the sheer volume and consistency of evidence from multiple independent sources, it is difficult to dispute the compelling case of widespread human rights violations.
You're correct, that is what the meme is referencing.
However, I responded to your statement attempting to deny photographic evidence of violence.
14 independent sources; yet you still are denying the evidence and moving goalposts.
This is what you wrote as of this comment:
Yet, in 2025, somehow, in the smartphone era, when almost literally every Chinese adult citizen carries a camera in their pocket with internet access (and widespread non-prosecuted access of VPNs in China to bypass the great firewall), there isn’t a shred of photographic evidence of violence against the Uyghur people.
It seems like some evidence of violence against them exists, and has been corroborated by multiple sources.
It sounds like the main point of confusion for you with semicolons, especially in bash and its if/then statements, isn't about their general readability but more about their role in defining what counts as a complete statement or command, and when they are required versus optional.
You're right that bash requires a semicolon (or a newline) after the if condition before the then keyword if they are on the same line. This is because then is considered a separate 'command' or keyword that follows the if condition and its associated [ ] or (( )) test.
A newline serves the same purpose as a semicolon.
In contrast, languages like Lua, Python, or PowerShell often have syntax where then (or its equivalent) is intrinsically linked to the if and doesn't require a separator between the condition and the block opening keyword, even on the same line. They typically use newlines or specific block delimiters (like end in Lua, indentation in Python, or curly braces {} in PowerShell) to define the scope of the if statement.
While the semicolon's general use is to put multiple commands on one line, its mandatory placement after the if condition before then in bash when on the same line is a specific syntactic requirement of bash to separate those two distinct logical parts of the if construct. Many other languages simply define if condition then block as a single syntactic unit, hence no semicolon is needed there.