The idea of boycotting goods from manufacturers whose enterprises are supported by state perpetrators of genocide might appeal to lots of people who are humanists.
In practice, that would mean not buying anything that has a connection to a list of countries that includes China, Indonesia, Belgium, and several countries which I'm not going to list because the conversation would become unmanageable, just as the Uyghur conversation would become unmanageable within China.
If China were the only guilty state in the world, a boycott would be a different proposition to what it is. Even then, it's not guaranteed to be effective because the way things work psychologically, commercially, and geopolitically.
Even though 99% of people consider themselves humanists, they are able to compartmentalise their feelings in surprising ways when it comes to the acquisition of consumer goods, energy, copper, gold, diamonds, and real estate.
In practice, that would mean not buying anything that has a connection to a list of countries that includes China, Indonesia, Belgium, and several countries which I'm not going to list because the conversation would become unmanageable, just as the Uyghur conversation would become unmanageable within China.
If China were the only guilty state in the world, a boycott would be a different proposition to what it is. Even then, it's not guaranteed to be effective because the way things work psychologically, commercially, and geopolitically.
Even though 99% of people consider themselves humanists, they are able to compartmentalise their feelings in surprising ways when it comes to the acquisition of consumer goods, energy, copper, gold, diamonds, and real estate.