If I was talking to someone purporting to be a victim or otherwise traumatized by this, I would be sensitive (and probably keep my mouth shut for the most part because I am bad at being sensitive). We however are just spectators to news reports afaik and I have nothing but disdain for the idea that we need to practice “sensitivity” instead of actually interrogating the reporting on this subject that has already seen wildly distorted reporting in the past.

It’s literally a core element of atrocity propaganda that it is deeply uncomfortable and socially stigmatized to question it. If we were receiving testimony from Nayirah, we should be gentle and reserved. If we are reading about the hearings and you tell me to be sensitive when it’s just uninvolved people talking amongst each other, I would call you a useful idiot and a mark.

I could say you are being insensitive for spending energy thinking about a mass surveillance campaign when there is a very obvious campaign by a certain other country that has killed five or more Muslims for every one China has surveiled. The vast majority of us agree that China’s campaign in Xinjiang isn’t exactly squeaky clean but every minute spent fixating on that past plain acknowledgement is a minute spent apologizing for US genocide.